Evidence of meeting #133 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was target.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
—but we do need more measures. It's not just 4% between 36% and 40%, because the 36% may be overly optimistic. You probably need a little more than 4%.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.
Good evening, Commissioner.
I want to focus on law and quickly look at whether the way we structured Bill C-12 and the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act is part of the problem. This goes back to Taylor's point about timelines. If this is outside of anything you've studied, just stop me cold.
There are about 60 countries around the world with climate accountability acts. The most successful, I would say, was probably the first, which was the U.K. It brought in a climate accountability act in 2008, and its first milestone year was five years later, in 2013. There are milestone years that are the same thing—five years from bringing it in. New Zealand's was five years from bringing it in. Ireland's was five years from bringing it in. It was the same for Germany. I think Canada is the only country around the world that put its first milestone year so far out from when the legislation was brought in.
Again, to the political horizon question, has your office or has anyone on your team looked at this as a fundamental problem with our accountability, in that we deliberately and politically put the first test of accountability far away from the political decision-makers who passed the law?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
We take our direction from Parliament, and it's up to parliamentarians to choose collectively what is in a new piece of legislation, and so on.
As I mentioned, lesson number 8 from our 2021 report does indicate that Canada struggled with addressing long-term problems. I've given one example that is actually from the U.K.—although I didn't mention it was from the U.K.—in terms of carbon budgeting, which is to bring a long-term problem into an annual deliverable. That's one example.
Whether it's set in legislation or not is a question for parliamentarians. However, creating yearly targets, whether it's by sector or whether it's globally, is one option.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Commissioner, to your point about setting the carbon budget and paying attention to where we are, as you've noted in a number of reports, our failures to reduce emissions increase costs in the not too far away time horizons that we're seeing, increase costs from climate events in Canada and increase risks to Canadians. That is why adaptation plans are so significant.
When we delay taking meaningful action—the steps we need to take to meet international and domestic goals—would you agree that the costs go up in implementation, as do the risks?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Yes. From a global perspective, the longer that Canada and others do not make the transition towards a net-zero economy and a net-zero society, the larger the price tag will be for extreme weather events and so on.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been listening carefully to the department's words and to the commissioner's words around this question of whether Canada is on track to meet the 2030 commitment.
If I understand correctly, the department's statement that Canada is on track relies not only on progress to date but also on a suite of measures that have yet to be announced and that have yet to be implemented.
I see a gentleman from the department nodding, so I'll take that to be accurate.
The commissioner has found in previous reports that by the time almost every measure the government has announced is implemented, it has been both less stringent than originally intended and more delayed, including the oil and gas emissions cap, notably.
Does the department's estimate account for the government's lacklustre track record when it comes to implementing measures on time and implementing them at the originally intended level of stringency?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Department of the Environment
I believe this is a question for me, the representative from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
I would tackle this question, Chair, in the following way.
Number one, I fully agree that the commissioner identified, through this report, a number of measures that are experiencing delays. In fact, the commissioner has also identified that some of the causes of delay are due to multi-jurisdictional impacts. Having a robust regulatory development process will take time. It will need negotiation, discussion and consultation with provinces, territories and Canadians. Therefore, we fully recognize that as fast as we would like to run, sometimes it is not up to the Government of Canada to determine the pace of how certain regulatory developments will be undertaken.
That being said, we also understand that there are regional circumstances and that we would need to fine-tune the regulatory instruments by engaging with Canadians and implicated parties. That could be more stringent or less stringent. The pace could be faster or slower, depending on the market, the sector and the buy-in.
Number three, in terms of whether some of these refinements would be reflected, pursuant to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, Canada is required to table a progress report in 2023, 2025 and 2027. For—
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I could cut you off, I think that's a pretty comprehensive response. I followed most of it.
I want to ask one quick question of the commissioner, if I may. I have only two and a half minutes. The chair is distracted, so this is the perfect time to fit it in.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Commissioner, of all the strategies the government has implemented and that you've tracked, have you ever seen one turn out to be more stringent and implemented more quickly than was originally intended?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, we have to stop there. We're well over time. I was distracted by another member. I think it was probably some kind of tag-team play or something.
We'll now go to Mr. Leslie.
Is it Mr. Leslie? I have Mr. Leslie twice.
Conservative
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, through your audit, you discovered that the Liberals have not conducted value-for-money assessments on five of their measures.
What does that mean, and why do you think they should have?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Value for money is very important, because several of these measures have substantial price tags associated with them, in terms of Canadian taxpayers, the private sector or the government itself, in the case of subsidies.
Value for money is important. A proper value-for-money assessment gives Canadians the sense that they're getting good bang for their buck. I'm using a more colloquial term for the use of taxpayer money. Essentially, you're showing a calculation to Canadians that we're spending billions of dollars and expecting X value. You quantify that. We've talked about that here, and we talked about that in the net-zero accelerator report from earlier this year.
In a nutshell, it's an important accountability measure.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I agree.
Through your audit, did the department explain why they wouldn't do that?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Ms. Leach will address that.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
Yes. Thank you.
There's a good explanation for that.
We made a recommendation. Recommendation 7.34 is that the government “establish a government-wide approach and guidance for value-for-money assessments”. Environment and Climate Change Canada only partially agreed with that recommendation. The reason that they stated is that value in federal decision-making is very multi-faceted. It includes things like society, culture, health, and indigenous and territorial relations, which are outside the remit of ECCC.
There are many things that are important besides money.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you.
You mentioned a whole-of-government approach, which is a term that gets thrown around a lot. However, you also alluded to some of the silos that certainly still exist across departments.
When the government has attempted to undertake this many measures—maybe not successful measures, but measures nonetheless—and claims a whole-of-government approach, how do you explain the silos that still continue to exist, which lead to things like the double-counting of emissions, a lack of credibility in terms of modelling, and going back to the previous audit on the two billion trees program? How does that happen so frequently under this government?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
That's one of the conclusions from our first report under this act from the fall of last year. It's that the system Canada uses in coordinating the efforts in a horizontal way—which is the term used by the federal government in Canada—has not nailed that yet, essentially. I'm just talking about the federal government and ignoring the other jurisdictions for now.
There are problems in terms of coordinating among Environment and Climate Change Canada, NRCan, ISED and so on. Without having a central agency or a central approach to this, you have the potential for, and the actual fact of, double-counting and even sometimes cases of working at cross-purposes.
Our recommendations from our first report last fall, if implemented, could help address that very important problem in terms of siloed approaches at the federal government level.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you.
You mentioned in the audit that getting closer to closing the gap on the 2030 targets was attributable to revisions in data and modelling methodologies. Can you explain what those changes were?
In your experience, have you ever seen a government make changes to its data modelling that took it further away from the target it's trying to reach, or only closer to it?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
These updates to the modelling are done to make the projections more accurate.
It's not just Canada doing them. Some of them come from calculations about the warming potential of various greenhouse gases—not just CO2, but the other ones as well. Ms. Leach can explain that in greater detail.
To answer your last question, I don't know, for each time they've modelled it, whether it's brought them closer or further. The point isn't to remodel to make it further or closer; it's to make it more accurate.
