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.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Would this ensure that all government decisions are analyzed in light of environmental goals, similar to the approach in France? You spoke about the matter this week or last week.
3:15 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
At this point in the implementation of climate policies, all government decisions must adhere to climate limitations. The government currently isn't taking ownership of these issues.
The legislation must provide a framework to ensure that the decisions that don't necessarily relate to the climate and the environment are as strongly geared towards carbon neutrality.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you. I have one last question for you.
In your opening remarks, you said that conveying urgency is part of transparency. I thought that this statement was quite strong. In terms of Bill C-12, you pointed out the lack of a number of critical components that would ensure long-term planning and accountability, and that would make it possible to consider the full range of measures and plans to achieve the goals.
What's your position on the principle of transparency, including the importance of perhaps—as you spoke about earlier—more publicly available reports?
3:15 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
In the United Kingdom and in France, each year, the two committees—the one that I chair in France and the one that I sit on in the United Kingdom—publish a report in June specifying the progress made over the year and any shortcomings. This is done by department, by ministry, by country and, in France, by region as well. This is the way that they operate. Their government must respond to these reports each year. This helps to maintain the urgency of the issue and make adjustments very quickly. You can't keep up that pace if you're issuing reports and making findings every five years.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I heard my name called.
Thank you to all of the witnesses. This has been a fascinating and very important conversation.
My first question is for Mr. Wright.
You talked a little bit about the role of the commissioner, and Professor Le Quéré also spoke to this in some detail. My question is whether the office of the environment commissioner, as it's currently set up, is adequately structured and resourced to perform an expanded role. Does it need not only to be made an independent officer of Parliament but also resourced in a much stronger way so that it can take care of what it could be tasked with under an expanded Bill C-12?
3:15 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
Thank you for the question.
It's hard to speak to resources, and I will openly say that I am somewhat biased and that I think the office deserves more resources. I think its role as an independent oversight body is a valuable one and that it would benefit from additional resources.
I think what you may be getting at, though, is the relatively circumscribed role of the office, which was alluded to earlier. It plays a retrospective role. It really answers the question of how things have been going and does not answer the question of how things ought to go. The office does not have the authority to look at the merits of pathways forward.
There's a broader question of institutional structure. That aspect would require broader amendments, frankly, to the Auditor General Act to modify that role to adopt that “question the merits” type of approach. That's been debated since the inception of the office back in the nineties. Again, that's a broader discussion, perhaps for here or perhaps not for here.
The last thing I would say is that there's perhaps a piece missing here. You have the retrospective aspect fairly well covered, although I would also suggest more frequent reports, probably two per five-year period—that is one of the amendments to clause 24—not once per five-year period. The missing piece is that prospective role, which means perhaps a bit more distance from the minister, to the previous point.
That role, under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, was performed by the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy. The current Institute for Climate Choices fulfils some of that but not all of it, so there is an institutional missing piece here that ought to be discussed by this committee and thought through, because institutions matter in terms of holding governments to account.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
You also spoke a little bit about justiciability. At the risk of making either one of us say that word more times than we have to, could you expand a little bit on the changes, apart from the amendment, that would put specific reference to judicial review into Bill C-12? What other changes in language would you, as a lawyer, feel would be important in terms of the enforceability and potential legal challenges under the act?
3:20 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
There is simple option A and complicated option B, so we're now on to complicated option B.
One proposal, or one suggestion, is to amend subclause 10(1)—that's the provision for the contents of the plan—to make it more detailed and more prescriptive.
This committee has heard proposals about explicit references to modelling and projections. I would recommend that as well, and generally the more detailed the better, because, again, what you're trying to set up in this statute are objective criteria that can be embraced by a court, interpreted by a court and applied by a court so that the court is not forced to move out of its comfort zone into determining policy matters.
The other specific suggestion is to add language to the effect that the federal government and the minister have a duty to “take all necessary measures to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established under this act and elsewhere.” Those specific words were heard earlier this morning or yesterday. Words really do matter, and those specific words—“take all necessary measures”—have been judicially interpreted and linked in Canada to a matter being justiciable. That may be helpful, and what form that may take is a new clause—probably a new clause 9 following clause 8—that is devoted to clarifying that there's a duty to take all necessary measures to achieve the targets that have been committed to.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll turn now to Professor Le Quéré.
We've heard from many witnesses about the need for a near-term milestone prior to 2030. I wonder if you could speak to the risk we run if we don't see a near-term milestone established within Bill C-12. What is the risk of not having that?
3:20 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
The risk is that the urgency will not be recognized. You now have a milestone for 2030, and you're going to have to very quickly establish a pathway for that milestone in your mid term. Having a milestone, then, in 2025 makes very obvious to all actors across society, particularly in the private sector, what they have to do to assist in that pathway. I think this is extremely important. The year 2030 is way too far, especially if the reports of the commissioner are going to come as slowly as every five years.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You've done a lot of thinking about this. If you were going to put in a 2025 milestone with a sign or target to it, what would that be, percentage-wise?
3:20 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
I would ask the net-zero advisory body to tell me.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. These are very interesting questions and answers.
We'll go to the second round, starting with Mr. Albas for five minutes.
May 20th, 2021 / 3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank all of the witnesses, but I'm going to pass my time to MP May.
3:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I am grateful and surprised. Thank you, Dan.
I want to start with Professor Le Quéré.
You're obviously very familiar with the U.K. legislation and the French legislation on climate accountability. Would it be unfair of me to ask you about other nations' climate accountability laws, such as those of New Zealand and other countries? You're nodding, so it's not unfair.
Is Canada alone in the world at this point in bringing in climate accountability legislation with a first milestone year that would be a decade after passing the legislation? It seems to me that New Zealand and the U.K. brought in a first accountability moment within five years of their legislation passing.
3:25 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
It is certainly the case for the countries I know that the first objective is in fact almost too close. France set up an objective that started the year the legislation was passed, and the sense of urgency this brought has been really helpful in trying to accelerate action.
3:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Looking at all other countries' legislation, it seems to me that there's a preference right around the world for having a body that's at arm's length from the minister in question and is designed around the expertise of the individuals serving on it, which rests very soundly on science as opposed to political objectives. Is that a fair statement?
3:25 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
Absolutely, that's a fair statement, particularly with regard to the element of expertise. You want the people who sit on that panel to bring what they know works with regard to climate change. If you start to have representation, then you don't have an advisory body; you have a consultation body.
3:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
I want to turn to Ms. Peel from the Canadian Labour Congress, and I'm assuming that Ms. Peel is still here.
I don't think we've paid enough attention to the just-transition piece, I want to ask particularly about the work that was done by the coal sector special body co-chaired by Hassan Yussuff. Do you think we can do much with just transition within the rubric of Bill C-12, or do we really need to get going and have a separate piece of legislation brought forward?
3:25 p.m.
Health, Safety and Environment Coordinator, Canadian Labour Congress
In the absence of that piece of legislation being brought forward, some recognition of that in Bill C-12, I think, is important.
When this climate accountability legislation was announced, the indication was that we would be setting five-year milestones while at the same time bringing in just-transition legislation to ensure a just transition of the workforce. In the absence of that legislation being introduced, we need something in this legislation to ensure that it is a component of the planning and the monitoring and the reporting, and actually the meeting of those milestones.