Government Operations Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[Nancy Sutley]

Generally, you're right that people in Los Angeles connect environmental degradation and climate change to public health issues. There's been an effort in the city of Los Angeles to promote the growth of green jobs, in part through activities the city itself has undertaken to reduce its energy use. The city works with a number of community-based organizations to provide jobs in retrofitting buildings, as well as to provide some financial support to community-based organizations to help promote the conservation of energy and water. There's an effort across the municipality to promote green jobs and to work with disadvantaged communities to grow those jobs. Much of this is encapsulated in the city's sustainability plan, which was issued by the mayor in 2015 and is due to be updated very soon.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What sort of challenges have you faced in educating people on the fact that climate change is real and that polluters have to pay?

[Nancy Sutley]

In California this has been a subject of public discussion for probably 15 years now. I think the public generally sees the connection between climate change and impacts in their community. You are probably aware that California has suffered some of the worst wildfires it has ever faced, resulting in about 85 people dying last fall, and people do connect that to climate change. Another area where California is very vulnerable is drought. For the first time in 10 years no part of the state of California is in drought, and people understand the connection between climate change and drought, sea level rise and other things, so there's a lot of concern in the community. They are seeing the impacts of climate change on a regular basis and are very supportive of activities and policies to address that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

My second question is for both Finland and Paris.

We have been listening to oceanologists, and they have been telling us that whales have been found with plastic in their stomachs. We do waste management. I came from Samoa, where they have converted waste—garbage—into consumable goods. Do you have any strategy for how we all, as a consumer-oriented society, manage our garbage, because that creates another problem for us?

[Hannele Pokka]

Thank you for having this plastic issue in this discussion because this is a huge problem. In Finland we are very glad that this plastic matter is now on the United Nations' agenda and also on the EU's agenda. Just lately we adopted our own plastic strategy in Finland. We made it with parliamentarians. Ordinary citizens were very committed and they asked for it, but they have taken it on personally too. We have made a plastic deal between the Ministry of the Environment and the central organization of commerce. It has been in force for more than one year. This was the first step before this strategy. The purpose of this deal was that people who don't want to buy any more plastic bags when they go shopping have their own bag with them. It has worked very well. The plastic bags have disappeared from markets and shops so there is 30% to 40% less, so it's quite a good solution. But this plastic strategy is going further than only consumers. We are seeking possibilities to deal with material other than plastics, and also to push forward with recycling plastic material.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you. We're going to have to move on.

We'll now go to Mr. Deltell.

You have the floor for seven minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, everybody, for attending this meeting.

First of all, I would like to make some general comments about that.

First of all, I'd like to point out that this morning's discussion has had a neutral environmental impact. We've heard from people from all over the world—California, Finland and France—all by video conference here, in Ottawa. No airplanes were chartered and no gas-guzzling transportation was used to make this meeting possible. That's a very good thing.

I still have a few general comments.

I think we have a lot to learn from Finland. Madam Pokka is a good example. As everybody knows, while Canada and Finland maybe don't share exactly the same kind of climate, we at least have some comparisons to make. In Canada, everybody knows that Victoria is not Quebec City and that Niagara Falls is not Whitehorse, but at least we know what winter is in Canada, as you people from Finland know.

It's also very interesting to learn from the Los Angeles experience. I welcome you, Madam, for being with us so early. It's, what, 6 a.m. there, or around that? Thank you so much for your participation.

I want to emphasize the fact that everybody talks about California as an example and all of that stuff, and yes, I think everybody can learn from each other, but it's interesting to remark and to outline that the first laws were adopted by President Nixon in 1970. We talked a lot about President Obama for sure, and we've talked a lot about other presidents, but we have to recognize the fact that the first president to introduce legislation and regulations on environmental issues was President Nixon. So many people forget that.

I'd like to say hello to our friends in Paris, France, and address my first questions to them.

My thanks to all three of you for speaking French. I'm going to address you in French, if you don't mind. I assume that is your preference as well.

You talked about the balance between binding targets and stakeholder engagement. Clearly, binding measures usually involve taxation of some sort. As far as participation-based measures go, stakeholders are rewarded for their achievements. You said you recognize stakeholders who demonstrate stellar performance.

Given your experience in France, which would you say is more effective as far as businesses and public authorities are concerned: binding measures or measures that focus on participation and recognition?

[Elise Calais]

It's possible to address both aspects.

I'd like to clarify something. On our end, we are responsible for the inter-ministerial mechanism, and Mr. Trocmé is responsible for the ministerial mechanism. He can provide more information on that.

What is the right balance between binding and voluntary measures? That's a great question. In fact, it's something we are trying to determine as we speak.

In terms of binding measures, it all depends on your ability to impose sanctions or penalties. I would say that's true for any statutory or regulatory measure. It all depends on the penalties: whether there are any, whether they provide a deterrent and whether they are likely to be enforced.

Currently, the French model is really quite voluntary in terms of commitment level. I'll give you an example. In theory, 50% of government-purchased vehicles have to be low-emission vehicles. In practice, however, the percentage is estimated at 12% for short term and 7% for inventory. Clearly, the reality is way off target. It all has to do with the fact that public authorities are given a certain number of exemptions, which they take full advantage of. When it comes to a mandatory approach, it all depends on political will.

As for a voluntary approach, it's a very good way to go because it encourages people not to focus solely on penalties, but also to think about the benefits of a virtuous circle and to work with us voluntarily.

[Jean-Baptiste Trocmé]

That's quite right. It's really about balance, in that you need both legs in order to walk.

I'll give you an example that isn't based on society. In our ministry, when we try to impose something through rules alone—for instance, requiring people to purchase electric vehicles or replacing a single garbage with three or four bins for different kinds of waste—we see that it doesn't work. Of course, you have to have rules because services that are reluctant to move in the right direction will not do so unless forced to. Making an action mandatory, however, isn't enough. If stakeholders aren't willing to put something into practice and make progress, if there is no buy-in, it won't work. For that reason, you need both elements.

[Corinne Fritsch (Acting Head of the Office of Public Service Leadership, Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, General Commission for Sustainable Development, Department for the Economy, Evaluation and Integration of Sustainable Development Policies, Division of Environmental Res]

You have to make it meaningful.

[Jean-Baptiste Trocmé]

Making it meaningful is key. Imposing an obligation without explaining the purpose it will serve or the results it will produce makes it harder for people to buy in and follow through. At least that's the case in France. Some even go to the trouble of doing things a different way simply because they didn't understand what the purpose was.

At the other end of the spectrum, limiting the approach to voluntary participation doesn't necessarily work either when it doesn't fit into a broader framework that makes clear the reason behind it and the importance of the measure from the government standpoint.

The fact of the matter is that the right balance is essential. The plan for 2020-25, which the General Commission for Sustainable Development is currently working on, balances the two elements. On the one hand, it sets out indicators for mandatory measures under the law, measures everyone has to comply with. There is no choice in the matter. On the other hand, stakeholders on the ground have the option to propose ideas specific to their context, ideas that would not have flowed from the central administration level. That's very important. When it comes to sustainable development, no one has the monopoly on good ideas.

Therefore, obligations need to be imposed from the top down, and good ideas need to be able to flow from the bottom up. It's a combination of both; success lies in achieving that alchemy.

[Corinne Fritsch]

Overall, the idea is to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Madame Fritsch, but we're completely out of time. Perhaps you will have an opportunity to expand upon your answer with our next intervenor.

Mr. Blaikie, you have seven minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to everybody for making the time to be with us here today.

I might avail myself of the assistance of the chair to give equal time to each set of witnesses to weigh in.

One of the questions I'm interested in is the examples of policies that promote the use of public investment under a greening of government strategy to leverage opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of our communities at large.

Say there were a defence post of some kind or a campus of government buildings, and say they were looking to have an alternative energy source, whether that be wind or solar. They could do that on their own and have that be just for their buildings, or they could do it in a way that partners with a local community to try to reduce the carbon footprint of their energy, for example.

In your own jurisdictions, are there examples where you have been able to use your greening government strategy to leverage positive effects and reduce carbon emissions over the economy as a whole?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Respondents, if you could keep your answers to about a minute and a half, that should allow all respondents to give their opinions.

Mr. Blaikie, who would you like to start with?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Why don't we start with our counterpart from the United States?

[Nancy Sutley]

There are a few things that I would give as examples. One thing that we did in about 2010—and it continues—is to issue a better buildings challenge at the community level to encourage people who have commercial buildings to reduce their energy use by 20% in 10 years. They are able to leverage the expertise of the U.S. Department of Energy to assist these communities, so it would be not just private buildings but also public sector buildings—so any U.S. government buildings and those owned by state and local governments.

The other thing that was incorporated into some of these executive orders was to work at the regional level. In some cities.... For example, in San Francisco, a number of federal agencies have regional offices, so they were encouraged to not only work together with the other federal agencies that have large presences in San Francisco, but also work with the community on greening programs and to participate in these regional greening programs.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We could go next to

our friends in France.

[Elise Calais]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, for instance, the European Union has committed to making reductions. They are broken down by country. In France's case, they take the form of a national carbon strategy. Some sectors are required to reduce their emissions, while others are not. What's more, France has set an expected price trajectory for carbon, which allows stakeholders, including those not bound by the obligation, to anticipate changing carbon prices. That also affects public contracting given that both businesses and government service organizations are required to report on their greenhouse gas emissions every four years and every three years, respectively.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Yes, from Madam Pokka, from Finland.

[Hannele Pokka]

I have only one example from Finland. The EU Commission and member states all adopted this 2020 target of how much we would cut CO2 emissions. At that time, a few years ago, we got a group of local municipalities and cities together and stated that we would take more ambitious targets. This group began to get more and more local municipalities involved in this job. Nowadays we have 300 local municipalities, 40 of which are carbon neutral. One of them reports they cut their CO2 emissions by 60%.

How did they do it? They took energy efficiency projects both in public and private buildings. They changed their heating to renewables. They built more windmills. Solar panels were also adopted. Energy efficiency was one key element. It was not based on regulations. I always say that Finland is a country where we obey regulations when we need new laws. They made one. They are continuing this work. I am very proud.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Drouin, you may go ahead for seven minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask my question, and then each of the witnesses can comment.

I'm wondering about the procurement policies each of your governments adopted in relation to the businesses and third parties they deal with. How do you make sure businesses have adequate green policies? When they seek to do business with the government, does the contract include a clause requiring them, for instance, to meet reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions?

Our colleagues in France can go first.

[Elise Calais]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

I touched on the subject earlier. When it comes to public procurement, we sometimes include certain clauses. Keep in mind that we have total control over government contracts, but that many hospitals and universities enter into their own contracts. In some cases, the contracts set out obligations, and in others, they include incentive measures. We encourage every public buyer to include a legal clause indicating, for instance, that if the buyer purchases wooden tables, they will ensure the tables are supplied by a carpentry company that can demonstrate the use of sustainable practices. That will count for 30% in the tendering process. That's really what we try to do. The environmental aspect can be given more weight than price or another factor.

As far as sound policies go, within the government, we don't currently have any of the systematic practices that can apply to contracts, such as the environmental, social and governance, or ESG, factors, or the second opinion. We don't specifically examine controversial situations involving businesses, if that's what you were wondering. It is something, though, that would be possible.

Thank you.