Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2020

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You can't go wrong with that answer, Minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Pauzé.

Bill C-12 does, of course, provide for increased accountability and many transparency measures.

The role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is to review the measures that will eventually be implemented. As I said, I am open to discussing the commissioner's role. It is very important, and we are committed to developing strong legislation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to come back to the commissioner's role. When the commissioner came to meet with us, he specifically talked about the damning report submitted to the Department of Transportation in 2011. Nothing was done in the years that followed up to 2020. Between 2011 and 2020, we saw the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic. If the department had acted earlier in terms of the transportation of dangerous goods, that accident might never have happened.

Would you agree that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development should have more powers, the real power, for example, to compel organizations he has audited to act on the recommendations he makes?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development plays a key role in providing objective and independent analysis of government affairs to ensure a clean environment for future generations. The commissioner's role is also essential in ensuring transparency.

I have worked a great deal on the legislation and I studied some reports by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The reports are very important, but it is not the commissioner's role to tell elected officials what they must do. It is, of course, the commissioner's role to identify instances where elected officials are not living up to their own commitments. This work is critical to maintaining transparency and ensuring that Canadians know what is going on.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So you are not open to the idea of giving the commissioner more powers or resources to do his job. Did I understand correctly?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I said, I'm very open to the idea of having a discussion on how to improve transparency through Bill C-12—this is what seems to interest you.

I also believe that the committee will have discussions on the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in the coming weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, go ahead, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Hi there.

First I want to thank the minister for appearing today before the committee and answering our questions.

My first question relates to how the supplementary estimates include funding of $492,318 to implement British Columbia agreements, but recent information from Environment Canada shows massive underfunding and an underspending of the environmental transfers to the provinces this year.

For example, B.C. was allocated $127 million but so far has received transfers of around $550,000. That's only 0.4% of the funding that's allocated—less than 1%. It seems fairly unacceptable. That data is from the amount of money actually transferred to provinces from Environment Canada from March 1 to September 28 this year, and those transfers to the provinces add up to about 8.6% of the total money allocated.

What I find even more troubling is the lack of funds that have been transferred to B.C. for the low-carbon economy leadership fund. It's particularly concerning. It concerns me that this is a continuing trend of not spending the money that's been allocated to programs designed to help us reach our carbon reduction targets.

In 2018-19, actual spending for the low-carbon economy fund was 50% under budget. The government is not on track to meet any of its climate targets. It hasn't met a single climate target. The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act is a small step in the right direction, but really, there is no climate accountability without climate action.

Minister, can you explain why we're still waiting for the government to come up with a real plan to meet our targets and how we are expected to meet those targets when the money that has been set aside for climate action isn't even being spent?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, MP Collins, for your question.

I think there were a few questions in there. The first one was relating to the six agreements in British Columbia. Those are reconciliation agreements with the Tsilhqot'in first nation, the Tsleil-Waututh first nation, the Musqueam first nation and a few others. They've been led by DFO, but Environment Canada has a role to play in those agreements, so the money is for that.

With respect to the two other issues you raise, I'm going to turn to Carol Najm to respond to some of the specifics, but Environment Canada actually has been fully distributing the monies that are allocated to it. Of the total voted authorities of $1.89 billion, 99.3% has been allocated or is available.

With respect to your last question, in terms of the climate plan, let's be clear. This government brought in the first real climate plan this country has ever had, with 50 different initiatives that identified 225-some-odd megatonnes in reductions. It didn't get us all the way to the Paris target, but it got us a heck of a long way.

Also, as I have mentioned a few times, I will bringing forward a new plan that will show not only how we will meet our targets but how we will exceed them. We will ensure that we are implementing the measures to do that.

Maybe I can turn to Carol to answer your other question.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Minister, before you turn to Carol to answer my other question, you said in your throne speech that you would present that plan immediately. Now, it's been a number of months. The climate accountability act gives this government another six to nine months after royal assent to actually set the target—the new, more ambitious target—for 2030.

If we're going to have a plan to meet that target, that means we're potentially waiting a year for that plan to come out. When are we going to see that plan? Why haven't we seen it yet? If you are saying “immediately”, what definition of “immediately” are you using?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I appreciate the question. I think it underlines the urgency people like you and me and others feel about this issue.

I said in the House of Commons in response to MP May's question yesterday that we will be bringing forward a plan in the coming weeks. Once we do that, we as a country need to consult with the provinces, territories and indigenous Canadians. We will be doing that, but we will have a new, nationally determined contribution well in advance of COP26.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Let's pass it over to Carol for the remainder of the answer.

[Carol Najm, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you for the question.

I'll ask my colleague Matt Jones, who is responsible for the LCEF to respond and provide the details.

[Matt Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Carol, and thank you very much for the question.

With regard to the low-carbon economy fund and the leadership fund program you referenced, the way we operate that program is to do the initial allocation. The province—in this case, the Province of British Columbia—then brings forward a collection of programs and proposals. Those are quickly reviewed and then embedded in an agreement, which we have signed with them.

They then implement the programs. These are all programs or projects that are co-funded by both the Government of British Columbia and the federal government.

As they go, they submit bills for the federal government's share. The pace of the disbursement of the funds is really driven by the pace of the implementation of individual projects and programs by our provincial partners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. You only have 10 seconds left, Ms. Collins.

We now begin the second round, starting with five minutes, then two and a half minutes. We start with Mr. Jeneroux.

Mr. Jeneroux, you have five minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here again.

Minister, regarding the plastics ban, yesterday you stated that the vast bulk of what we announced was about enhancing recycling. You also have announced a ban on six plastic items that are currently in high demand, and you also announced that plastics will be labelled as “toxic”.

What impact is the ban of these plastic items expected to have on reducing Canada's GHG emissions?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I say, it is important to take a comprehensive approach to addressing the plastics issue. Part of that is about ensuring that we are changing product design. It is about enhancing recycling rates. It's about recycled content standards. On all of these, we have worked very closely with the provincial environment ministers across the country to ensure that we are developing a common plan around that, because it's important that there are not 10 different markets for recycled products.

The other piece of this is that products that are harmful in the environment, difficult or costly to recycle and for which there are readily available alternatives end up on the banned list. There are six items on that list. It is not an exhaustive list.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, specifically to the GHG emissions—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

At the end of the day, what I would say to you is that Canadians are far ahead of governments and political parties on this issue. They want us to take action on plastic pollution in the environment. That's what we've done.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, I've met with lots of stakeholders, constituents and small business owners who are worried and concerned about the plastics ban. Which items will be included and excluded from the “toxic” label?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The list of six items has been published now for several months. It includes plastic utensils, plastic bags, plastic rings on six-packs of beer.... They are all well outlined there. I don't think they're a surprise to anybody. They're all things for which there are alternatives and they're all things that are harmful.

Again, I would tell you that the vast, vast majority of Canadian would like to see aggressive action on plastic.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, what's your alternative to non-reusable bags? What's your alternative for to-go packaging for takeout?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

First of all, the only thing that's affected in terms of takeout is a particular kind of packaging that's used that is very, very difficult to recycle and does end up in the environment. It's called polystyrene.

Second, with respect to plastic bags, there are readily available alternatives. For one, there are reusable bags, which many Canadians are using these days, but in their absence, there are paper bags. There are a whole bunch of different things you can use that are not plastic grocery bags.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, I want to go to the clean fuel standard, but on that point, we know there are a lot of grocery stores that have banned reusable bags during the pandemic, just so you are aware.

We heard from the Auditor General that when it comes to some of your policies, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to assess your government's targets, meaning there's really no way to know whether your policies will do what they are expected to do, which is lower GHG emissions. In fact, there really has been no plan outlined when it comes to Canadian fuel standards. There seems to be no commitment to engage, listen to and work with industry to ensure that a Canadian fuel standards policy will achieve results.

The first step before introducing regulations is to be transparent. Will you be requesting input from the Office of the Auditor General on the Canadian fuel standards in order to demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will do and lower Canada's GHGs?