Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 51 - Evidence - November 6, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 6, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, met this day at 7:03 p.m. to study the bill.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Rosa Galvez. I am an independent senator representing Quebec and I am the chair of this committee. I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves please, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Quebec.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Pierre Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our library analysts, Sam Banks and Jesse Good, and the clerk of the committee, Maxime Fortin.
Colleagues, tonight we are beginning our study of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.
For our first meeting we welcome, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister; Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister; and Gail Haarsma, Acting Director, Sustainable Development Policy Division, Strategic Policy Branch. I thank all of you for joining us.
Minister McKenna, I invite you to proceed with your opening statement, after which we will go to a question and answer period.
[Translation]
Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Hello, everyone. To begin, I wish to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.
[English]
I want to thank all of you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. This bill came about as a result of our government’s response to the unanimous report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It has received unanimous support at every stage of consideration by the House of Commons. I should say that doesn’t always happen.
I am also very pleased to be joined by Stephen Lucas, my deputy, as well as Gail Haarsma, Acting Director, Sustainable Development Policy.
[Translation]
I will use this opportunity to provide an overview of the bill and to respond to any questions you may have.
[English]
The Federal Sustainable Development Act, as we know it today, was put forward as a private member’s bill by the Honourable John Godfrey and became law in 2008. It provides the legal framework for the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and requires 26 departments and agencies to prepare their own strategies that contribute to it.
That act was an important step forward for transparency and accountability. It resulted in a strategy that brings federal sustainability goals, targets and actions together in one place, supported by effective reporting through environmental indicators.
[Translation]
But we can, and must, go further. We need strategies that guide action across government and improve Canadians’ quality of life. We need strong accountability to ensure we achieve results. And we need to continue talking with Canadians because everyone has a role to play in achieving sustainable development.
[English]
With Bill C-57, we are taking the next step toward a more effective, accountable and inclusive approach to sustainable development in Canada.
In June 2016, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a unanimous report entitled Federal Sustainability for Future Generations. The committee heard from 17 witnesses who provided feedback, sound advice and guidance.
If we want our government’s Federal Sustainable Development Strategy to be a success, the report made clear that we need to make amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act.
Bill C-57 addresses the 13 recommendations made by the standing committee report. The recommendations include expanding the purpose and scope of the act, promoting a whole-of-government approach, engaging Canadians, and increasing the number of federal departments required to prepare sustainable development strategies.
Bill C-57 would revise the act’s purpose, shifting the focus from short-term planning to long-term vision. It would ensure that our strategy respects international and domestic sustainable development obligations, including the Pan-Canadian Framework, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the same time, it would provide the flexibility to address new and emerging issues such as plastic waste.
In addition to the precautionary principle and the basic principle of sustainable development, which already appear in the act, Bill C-57 adds six new principles.
First is the principle that sustainable development is a continually evolving concept, setting out how it can be achieved and advanced. Second is the principle of intergenerational equity. Third is the principle of openness and transparency. Fourth is the principle of Aboriginal involvement. Fifth is the principle of collaboration, and sixth is the principle of a results and delivery approach.
All of these principles would be considered in the development of sustainable development strategies.
[Translation]
The bill also responds to the standing committee’s recommendation to involve central agencies in promoting sustainable development within government. Amendments in Bill C-57 would formalize Treasury Board’s role in developing policies and issuing directives on the sustainable development impact of government operations.
[English]
Bill C-57 will help bring about a whole-of-government approach by expanding the number of federal organizations subject to the act, bringing the number of organizations from 26 to over 90. Many of these organizations have a significant environmental footprint. By bringing them on board we can promote sustainable development in a way that has greater impact on Canada.
[Translation]
Transparency and accountability to Parliament were key recommendations of the standing committee. Parliamentarians have always played an essential role in monitoring how the government meets its sustainable development commitments. Bill C-57 would set a higher bar for transparency and oversight by making departments report annually to the committee of each house of Parliament that deals with sustainable development.
[English]
It would also require targets in the federal strategy to be measurable and include a time frame.
Recognizing that sustainable development is an evolving concept and that we cannot anticipate the future, we are also proposing that the act be reviewed every five years by a parliamentary committee.
For the same reason, the bill would not incorporate specific goals in the legislation. The Honourable John Godfrey himself stated that had goals been included in the existing act, we could not have had coverage to address clean growth and climate change.
[Translation]
The standing committee also wanted to ensure Canadians’ perspectives guide our strategy and our actions. Public consultations are already an essential part of the government’s approach. Canadians showed their support for the strategy during consultations on the 2016-19 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, and for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other key initiatives. Canadians have appreciated the strategy’s accessibility and transparency, and the government’s openness to receiving input.
However, Canadians also stressed that they are looking for greater progress and improvements, including more inclusiveness to guarantee a strategy that engages all Canadians.
[English]
We will continue to engage Canadians to ensure that Canada is a sustainability leader. Public consultation will continue to shape future federal sustainable development strategies, and the bill would require that federal organizations take the feedback of Canadians into account when developing their own strategies.
To further promote inclusive consultation, the bill would strengthen the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, which I chair and which currently includes representatives of each province and territory, Indigenous peoples, business, environmental non-governmental organizations and labour. Bill C-57 would increase representation of Indigenous peoples on the council from three members to six, and the council would seek to reflect the diversity of Canadian society.
[Translation]
The current Federal Sustainable Development Strategy is the strongest to date, and Bill C-57 would make future strategies even stronger. This is because we will have a more inclusive and participatory approach aimed at engaging and involving all Canadians.
We are committed to continuing the dialogue with our partners, stakeholders, and all Canadians outside of consultations on the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. We will continue to let them know what the government is doing, and encourage them to share their own sustainable development initiatives.
This bill would build on what we have already achieved, set the stage for more transparent and accountable strategies in the future, and support our government’s commitment to building a clean environment and a strong economy. Sustainable development is about people — about achieving a better quality of life for all Canadians.
[English]
I look forward to the work of this committee as it reviews this important piece of legislation. I welcome recommendations that may be brought forward by the committee, and I am happy to respond to any questions you may have.
I also want to acknowledge the work of Senator Griffin, the sponsor of Bill C-57. I really appreciate all your support.
The Chair: We have a list of 12 senators wanting to ask questions. I suggest that each one uses three minutes for the first round, and then we will see for a second round of questions. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Madam Minister, the bill refers to achieving measurable results within fixed time frames. We know that certain organizations, such as the UN and the Auditor General of Canada, have stated that Canada is behind on its initial time frame. They even said that Canada is far from adequate and has not done its share.
Can you reassure Canadians by telling them that, even if we are behind schedule, we will catch up? Can you reassure them by explaining how Canada can catch us?
Ms. McKenna: In terms of being behind schedule, do you mean with respect to climate change?
Senator Massicotte: With regard to CO2 emissions.
Ms. McKenna: You mean CO2 emissions related to climate change?
Senator Massicotte: Yes, that’s right.
Ms. McKenna: Okay. Thank you for your question, senator. Having targets and plans to achieve them is important. We also have to be able to measure progress.
When our government came into office, there had been no action on climate change for 10 years. We spent a year negotiating with the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples. We then set targets and a plan to achieve them.
We have already made some progress since our greenhouse gas emissions are dropping, even though we are in a period of economic growth. We have a lot of work to do, since the 2030 target involves eliminating coal. From now until then, we will not see all the results, but we can say that we have a robust plan.
In addition to setting a price on carbon, we are making historic investments in clean technologies, green infrastructures, renewable energy and public transit.
I can assure you that we are working every day to see the progress made and to measure it. In my opinion, setting a target is not enough. We also have to be able to meet that target. As a result, we obviously all have to do more to get there.
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, we have to increase our ambition every five years. We are at the start of the process and think that every country will have to do more.
Senator Massicotte: You negotiated a national plan with the provinces that everyone is participating in. That said, certain provinces are showing signs of hesitation, yet you are imposing this federal strategy, which I support.
You also seem to think that everything will work out and that we will meet expectations and obligations under the Paris Agreement. Is that correct?
Ms. McKenna: Yes. We have a plan that will allow us to meet our objectives. There is a UN report that indicates that we have a lot of work to do to remain below the 2 oC level.
That is why we are taking further actions abroad. With the United Kingdom, for instance, we are trying to eliminate coal, something that all countries have to do. A lot of countries are working with us to eliminate coal.
Honestly, I can tell you this represents a lot of work for Canada, given the conservative provinces that refuse to put a price on pollution. Nonetheless, we re-evaluate our targets every year and make sure we are on track.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: I will now give the floor to the critic of the bill, Senator Patterson.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Yes, I am privileged to be the critic of the bill, although, as you said, minister, it has had all-party support in the Commons.
As I said when addressing the bill in the Senate, it also received the endorsement of the previous Harper government. That government supported Mr. Godfrey’s bill.
It is logical to bring all the operations of federal government departments, agencies and Crown corporations under this bill. As you said in your speech, minister, it brings all federal sustainability goals, targets and actions together in one place by requiring reports using environmental indicators.
What if the departments don’t do their jobs? What if they don’t report? What if their reports are not adequate?
We heard from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who talked about the successes of federal departments in meeting their obligations in other respects. She recently presented us with concerns about not all departments getting on board with these important initiatives.
What is going to happen? How are we to make sure that there are consequences for not reporting or not meeting goals?
Ms. McKenna: That’s a very important question because the goal of this is to make sure that we do show progress and that we hold departments to account.
That was one of the reasons we amended the act, quite frankly. We wanted to have clearer targets and increased transparency because some of the targets were not really measurable before. As you know, we also increased the requirement and applied it to 90 federal organizations.
When you look at the targets, they will all be measured. Reporting will be required every year. Departments will be required to go before committee, and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development will also be reviewing the reports.
We think that this is a much more robust framework to ensure that we are holding folks to account. When you look at things like our climate change plan in my role as Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I want other departments to be making sure that they’re delivering. Whether it is transportation on electric vehicles, it really is an across-government approach. I think this approach has that intended impact.
Senator Patterson: The Treasury Board is mentioned in the bill. What is their role in co-ordinating the work of federal departments? Could you explain what the Treasury Board could do?
I believe the bill suggests that the Treasury Board could take action in its role, in addition to your authority as the minister. What could the Treasury Board do with negligent departments?
Ms. McKenna: Treasury Board is also covered as a central agency and plays a very important role. I was on the Treasury Board reviewing departments, projects and programs. I’ll ask my deputy to add to that.
Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada: The bill recognizes the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat in providing the guidance framework for how the sustainable development objectives translate into government operations. It provides that foundational role.
Our Department of Environment and Climate Change provides the coordination function for bringing together the progress report and the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy every three years. Each department provides their own. Then Parliament itself, through the annual progress reporting three-year cycle or triennial, reviews overall progress and new strategies and provides the accountability and transparency framework critical to raising the bar over time.
Senator Patterson: Did you say that the Treasury Board provides a standard template for reporting the strategies? If so, does that mean they don’t have enforcement or they don’t have tools to demand that departments step up when they’re falling short?
Mr. Lucas: We work closely with the Treasury Board. They provide the framework for the annual reporting on progress through supplementary tables to the departmental performance reports. We provide the overall framework for developing the departmental sustainable development strategies. We both play a challenge function in reviewing the robustness of those.
Through the transparency provisions of tabling, they’re out there for scrutiny by parliamentarians, by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and by Canadians. The sustainable development advisory process and our website will provide a focal point for Canadians to comment.
We indeed receive comments that lead to changes in the strategy. We’ve updated our strategy twice since it was last realized in 2016. We believe this process, through transparency and accountability, strengthens the strategy and provides that challenge from a number of directions.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, minister, for being here on what I think is a crazy day for everybody.
I am pleased to see the five-year review placed in the bill because with changing technology and with new knowledge about the environment, it’s important that it be renewed.
When I read clause 9 I am in a bit of confusion. First it says, “by any committee of the Senate or the House of Commons,” and then it says later on, “or of both Houses of Parliament.”
Is it an either/or, or is it one committee in each of the houses of Parliament?
Ms. McKenna: My understanding is that it could be both committees, but I will seek clarification. I mean the committees of the Senate and the House of Commons.
Senator Cordy: Is it either/or, or is it definitely one committee in each house of Parliament?
We know in the Senate that if it is one committee, I guess the percentage is pretty high that it will just be the House of Commons.
Mr. Lucas: It is specifically noted as either one or the other or both in a joint process.
Senator Cordy: But who makes the decision?
Mr. Lucas: We’ll clarify that.
Senator Cordy: You spoke about the principles that have been added to the bill. Could you give a bit more detail on what is meant by the principle of intergenerational equity?
Ms. McKenna: I’ll give you my understanding of intergenerational equity. I am not sure if there is a definition, so I will have my able team go and look for it.
Senator Cordy: I don’t need a definition in the bill.
Ms. McKenna: Intergenerational equity comes up a lot when we think about, for example, climate change. Right now we are passing on the biggest debt ever to future generations. This is called climate change and the impacts of climate change.
As we think about what is equitable, it’s thinking, maybe in the way First Nations put it, seven generations ahead. We look at equity in a broader way than just passing on wealth in monetary terms. When it comes to the environment, it’s much broader than that. We need to be considering the impacts we are making on our planet when it comes to future generations.
There might be a more eloquent way of putting it.
Senator Cordy: I like the ordinary way.
Mr. Lucas: It goes to the heart of sustainable development and the principle flowing from the Bruntland Commission.
The clarification on the previous point is that it is up to the committees here and in the house to individually or jointly decide on the process of review every five years.
Senator Richards: In the last year the companies that moved away from Alberta and out west were Strath, Total, Shell, ConocoPhillips and Marathon. Recently, Canadian companies have been feeling that they will have to move too.
Will this sustainable development strategy ever entice these companies back, or do you think we even need those companies as far as our economy goes today? Do we need them back, or can we let them go?
Ms. McKenna: I always say the environment and the economy go together. Of course we need good companies because they create good jobs here in Canada.
I have also been unapologetic in saying that we need to get our resources to market, but we need to do that in a sustainable way.
Companies make decisions based on a whole range of factors. What is critically important for the government is to have proper regulatory frameworks and to make sure we are showing that we can take action on climate change in a way that ensures the competitiveness of companies.
Clean competitiveness is incredibly important. When you look at the investments that we’ve seen, Shell just announced the largest investment in Canada’s history in LNG. That is an opportunity that I see.
I came back from China on Saturday night, and China is looking for Canadian clean solutions. I promote Canadian companies and businesses everywhere I go. LNG is a huge opportunity. China is one of the investors as they look at moving off coal, which they want to do because it’s really bad for the quality of life for people, for their health and for climate change.
We have solutions. I think you can do both. That has always been the approach of our government. I don’t think you can do neither. For example, not looking at the impacts on the environment of major projects and not considering climate change actually makes you less competitive. You need to be smart in how you approach things, and that’s certainly the principle we take.
I take very seriously the importance of having strong Canadian companies, including in our resource sector.
Senator Woo: I want to pick up on the question of the intergenerational equity. I totally agree with the deputy minister that this concept is as central as you can get to the idea of sustainability. It is actually a real surprise that it wasn’t part of the principles of the original bill because it all boils down top intergenerational equity.
Intergenerational equity is not just some vague concept. It boils down to some very specific measures of how we weigh the present versus the future.
I hope this question is not too technical. Maybe it’s for the department. It has to do with discount rates, if I can put it very directly. It is the idea of a social discount rate that allows society to say that the costs to society in the future are as important as the costs today. The way we weigh how important these costs are is the interest rate we use to measure it.
If you are taking a whole-of-government approach to sustainability, one very simple approach is to have a consistent social rate of discount for major projects and in assessing the costs of climate change or any other kind of pollution in our society. When you use a consistent discount rate, you are taking a view on the importance of the future vis-à-vis the present.
I don’t expect a detailed answer at this stage, but I am interested to know if the department is working on the issue of how we come up with an appropriate social rate of time preference, as some people call it, so that the government can be consistent across departments in evaluating projects, in evaluating pollution, and in evaluating damage to the environment.
Ms. McKenna: I’ll take a stab at that, and then I will hand it over to my deputy. As soon as you said that, it made me think of the social costs of carbon, where we actually put a cost and a value on that.
It is really important. We found the definition of intergenerational equity. It is a principle that is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
This is also an approach when we look at major projects and we have legislation that is going through the Senate in terms of impact assessments.
It is an interesting question about how you value it across the board. It is certainly something we think about greatly. The UN was able to put a cost of inaction on climate change. I cannot remember what year, but they put the cost at $50 trillion in the future if we do not act on climate change.
Often we don’t think about that. It is incredibly important. I think about that all the time because if you have children, you think about what you’re passing on to them. Are you giving them the same opportunities? Will they be able to meet their own needs?
Mr. Lucas: I was going to say in direct response that certainly the most rigorous analysis occurs in the context of regulatory policy and the cost benefit analysis we do. Whether it is indeed the social cost or health impacts of taking action on air quality, they are considered in the cost and benefits of a policy. That is an established methodology that we continue to develop through working with other departments. It provides that framework as you work into the future and understand the costs and benefits associated with policies.
Senator Woo: Perhaps I can elaborate a bit. Even if you can estimate the cost in the future of X trillion dollars to the environment, you can easily discount that cost by having a very high interest rate. You can say that those costs don’t matter as much because the present matters more than the future.
A lot of countries get away with it by having a very high discount rate. A lot of analysts get away with not worrying about pollution and not worrying about climate change by assuming that the present is much more important than the future. They do that by using a number.
It boils down to numbers in some senses. If the Government of Canada is able to advance some thinking and work on how Canadians think about the present vis-à-vis the future, I think that really will help us all come together on where we value today versus the future.
Right now it’s an abstract debate. When you say $30 trillion, a high discount rate can get rid of that quite quickly.
Ms. McKenna: It’s interesting because there is a movement internationally to do a much better job of this. You can look at what Mark Carney is working on and look at climate disclosure and how important it is because you now have assessment of risk.
That might be a bit different from what you are talking about, but it is a similar idea. You can’t keep marching on the way you are without acknowledging the huge risk that you have if you have a high carbon portfolio.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you, minister, for being here. It’s interesting to listen to your explanation.
I have a couple of questions. You say that you want a more effective, accountable and inclusive approach to sustainable development, and that we need strong accountability to ensure we achieve results.
I don’t agree. Tell me how you will get accountability from 90 departments. Explain a bit more about how the accountability part works.
If the departments aren’t meeting their targets, what happens? Is there some form of a penalty or what? Usually, if you are not meeting a target that is set for you, something has to happen. Maybe you could give me a couple of examples of how that would work.
Ms. McKenna: First of all, it is very important that you actually have a target that is measurable. A real problem before was that people had vague targets, so you could not even tell if someone had made that target or not. You could say that you made it but maybe you had not.
Senator Neufeld: Governments have done that? Is that what you’re saying?
Ms. McKenna: It’s now a requirement. One of the amendments we made is that you actually have to have tangible targets that were measurable. You have to report on your progress and indicate whether you were achieving your targets.
Then you are held to account through transparency, through the Senate and through the House of Commons process. You also have the commissioner who also does very vigorous reporting, analysis and auditing of each of the reports.
When we are audited and we are found not to have lived up to the high standards by the commissioner, certainly we take that extremely seriously. I will certainly say that there are repercussions in the sense that you are now having to explain yourself as to why you have not met those targets, and you will be required to do better.
That process is quite standard across the board. That is the approach that has been taken, and I think transparency through Parliament is an important part of this.
Senator Neufeld: We are not coming close to meeting the target the present government has set to meet by 2030, as far as I understand and from the reports I have seen and whatnot.
What you are saying is the transparency of letting the public know that the government is not meeting its targets is the accountability, the penalty and something that encourages government to do better. Is that correct?
Ms. McKenna: To be clear, it is a 2030 target, and we have committed to meeting that target. I will be frank that it is a challenging target because for 10 years the previous government did nothing.
We have a plan. The plan has been in place now since December 2016. We are implementing that plan. Some of the measures would impact quite quickly, but some of them are like phasing out coal by 2030 or even, taking a very local example, the investment in the second phase of LRT for Ottawa. It will be the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the city’s history, but we are still building it.
We are absolutely committed. Even in that context, we report on our emissions, how we are tracking and all of the measures in a very transparent, robust way. We are certainly hopeful other parties that say they will have climate plans will do the same.
Senator Neufeld: You say you are to bring the number of organizations from some 26 to 90.
Is that all of government? Is that it, or are there more organizations and groups that you have to corral?
Mr. Lucas: The detailed Financial Administration Act is for the three schedules. It takes you from core departments like Environment and Climate Change, to include the RCMP and the National Research Council, out to 90 departments.
Crown corporations are not included in that group at this point, but the bill can enable that through a Governor-in-Council decision to go further.
We view the step from 26 to 90 as a significant step. It allows the embrace of moving away from environmental focus to a sustainable development focus by bringing in departments that look at social policy.
Senator Neufeld: But Crown corporations are not included.
Mr. Lucas: Crown corporations like Canada Post are not included at this point.
The Chair: Because we are on the subject, can I ask you if the budget for the environment commissioner will increase because her load will increase from 26 to 90 departments? She will be appearing here, so I will ask her that question too.
Ms. McKenna: She may have views. That isn’t the intention.
Senator Seidman: I would like to ask about the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. The bill says:
The mandate of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council is to advise the Minister on any matter related to sustainable development that is referred to it by the Minister.
I would appreciate if you could help me understand what that means. What types of matters would you suspect would be referred? Let’s start with that.
Ms. McKenna: We have many different groups that provide advisory roles to me in my function as Minister of Environment and Climate Change. It could be anything from progress reporting, or I guess it could be something that isn’t strictly related to this act.
It could be using their expertise in the concept of sustainable development, which is a concept we have embraced as a government, as we approach a whole range of different issues.
Mr. Lucas: I would complement the minister’s point. Core areas would be engaging consultants and seeking their views on the triennial progress report that we would compile, coupled with the draft strategy. Indeed that was done in the 2016-19 strategy, and it received invaluable input from the advisory committee as well as Canadians more broadly.
Senator Seidman: It is the minister who is asking the council on any matter related to sustainable development. I am just trying to understand because it’s very broad.
How does the minister decide what types of matters she wants consultation on?
Ms. McKenna: As my deputy said, obviously the focus would be on the act, the measures under the progress reports and the strategy.
Oftentimes getting advice from broad groups that have particular expertise is useful and could be in a whole range of different ways such as approaching species at risk or different parts of my portfolio.
Senator Seidman: Would that advice be made public?
Ms. McKenna: That’s a good question.
Gail Haarsma, Acting Director, Sustainable Development Policy Division, Strategic Policy Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: In the past we made public the information that we received during public consultation. In the 2016-2019 strategy there is a resumé of what the Sustainable Development Advisory Council put forward. Yes, it would be made public.
Senator Seidman: You say that there will now be six representatives of Aboriginal peoples on this advisory council. How would they be selected?
Mr. Lucas: It is a matter on which we would engage with national Indigenous organizations. We would seek representation from First Nations, Inuit and Metis nations and look for expertise in areas pertaining to sustainable development on one or more of the pillars.
Senator Simons: This is my first time at this meeting, and I’ve already learned that I have to get to my questions faster because the two questions I wanted to ask have already been asked. I will follow up with some other questions on the advisory council.
You are increasing the Indigenous membership. How many people are on the council now? Would the number of people on the council be increased overall, or would those three new Indigenous voices bump three existing people off of the committee?
Ms. Haarsma: There are currently 25 members on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, plus the minister, which would make 26. The three would be in addition to that, so 28 plus the minister would be 29.
There are representatives from each province and territory, three representatives from business, three from unions, three from environmental organizations, three currently representing Indigenous peoples, and then there will be three more.
Senator Simons: The responsibilities they will be taking on will be greatly increased. The mandate before was just to look at the draft legislation. Now they will be on call to provide ongoing advice to the minister.
Do they have term limits? Do they serve for three years or five years? Do they serve at the pleasure of the minister? It talks about compensation for some expenses. Do they also receive honoraria?
Ms. McKenna: I can answer one part of that with clarity. The compensation is for reasonable expenses, which is pretty standard. They serve for four-year terms.
Mr. Lucas: I would add that the focus of the work is really in the context of the act and the elaboration of sustainable development strategies.
Are there particular actions? Is progress being made? Are there future areas of their advice the government could considerin the context of an overall sustainable development strategy or departmental strategies in particular.
Ms. McKenna: If you are interested, I found the multi-interest advisory committees are extraordinarily helpful. People sit around the table who might not sit around the table normally, so you have industry with Indigenous peoples, with provinces and with environmentalists.
Sometimes it’s easier to have different views outside of the room, but when you sit at the table you find common interests relatively quickly. There will be divergences, but you can get better outcomes.
Senator Simons: That’s very good to hear. My 30 years of journalism makes me cynical about advisory councils in all their various forms and manifestations.
It seems to me, minister, that you are describing a different process from the one your deputy minister is describing. Mr. Lucas is saying that this advisory council would be very narrowly attached to this act, and you seem to indicate they would give you more broad advice across issues in your ministry.
I want to clarify which it was.
Ms. McKenna: The focus is definitely on the act, the reports and the reporting. Could they do something more broadly? I imagine a potential situation where they could, but I don’t think that is the intent.
Senator Griffin: I have a quick observation and then a quick question.
My observation follows up on Senator Cordy’s question about which committee, which house or both. I understand that. I just want to point out that the Statistics Act said that something similar could go to a committee of either house, and it went to neither. That is a problem, so I am glad you are on top of that so that the same thing doesn’t happen again.
My question is in regard to the timing of the passage of this amendment or the amended legislation. If it’s not passed relatively soon, I am assuming that you will have started to develop the next three-year strategy using the old or existing legislation. Is that correct?
Ms. McKenna: That is true. We need to be starting to take action. However, we are hopeful that we will be able to pass this. We are thinking more broadly as we approach the issues. This is a very good approach. Aligning it more closely with the sustainable development goals and taking a sustainability approach is a better approach. It also helps me in my portfolio. I am one minister, but really we need to ensure ministers across the board are doing the work they need to be doing, whether on climate change or other environmental issues.
The Chair: You mentioned that one of the reasons for Bill C-57 was to ensure that we respect our obligations internationally and domestically and you cited different conventions. However, the UN 2030 goals are not there. Can you explain why specifically they are not mentioned in the bill?
Ms. McKenna: I’ll get the answer on specifically why they are not mentioned. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development had the helpful suggestion that we should align these with the sustainable development goals. It’s tricky because the legislation was drafted before you had sustainable development goals. The focus of the sustainable development goals is actually what is Canada doing as a whole on a whole range of goals. Some are a bit too far removed from the framework that we have here. It includes what the provinces are doing and what other people are doing, but we did reflect 13 of the most relevant sustainable development goals.
Mr. Lucas: The construct of the purpose now notes those international and domestic obligations but recognizes they can change over time. Rather than enumerating them specifically, which reflects a point in time, it references that. Certainly those obligations are read into the specific three-year strategies and commitments made, whether it’s the UN SDGs Convention on Biological Diversity or other new conventions that may emerge in the future.
Senator MacDonald: Section 12 of the act requires the federal government to include provisions in all performance-based contracts for meeting the applicable targets in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and the departmental sustainable development strategies, but Bill C-57 repeals this. Why would you repeal it?
Mr. Lucas: The answer is more technical. That pertained to performance-based contracts for procurement. Because of the reference to the Treasury Board and its policies pertaining to government operations including procurement, the view was rather than have that specific mention, the reference to Treasury Board and policies would be reflected in the policies the government needed to operate by, be they performance-based contracting, other measures on greening government, or pertaining to other aspects of the act.
Senator MacDonald: Does it mean that performance-based contracts no longer include provisions for meeting applicable targets?
Mr. Lucas: Those are the rules. They will continue but through the directives and policies of government-to-government procurement, purchasing, or other matters as set out by the Treasury Board. That continues but it is framed more broadly.
Senator MacDonald: I used to work years ago in Public Works and Supply and Services, which doesn’t exist anymore. We were always dealing with contracts and purchasing.
Senator Neufeld mentioned increasing the number of federal institutions required to contribute to the strategy from 26 to 90 and noted that there were some exemptions. He mentioned a couple.
Why would any be exempt? Why would anybody be exempt?
Mr. Lucas: The stage in going from the 26 departments that currently have more of environmental focus and are currently preparing sustainable development strategies for 90 departments is a very significant expansion for all of the scheduled organizations with parliamentary appropriations, including National Research Council, Defence and the RCMP.
Given the significance of that step, the decision was taken to broaden that focus which allows for the encompassing of social, economic and environmental considerations, sustainable development and consideration of the ability to act in the future.
Senator MacDonald: Why would anybody be exempt?
Ms. McKenna: Technically they are not exempt. It is just that they have not been added. There is a distinction. Because we started with 26 to 90, it was a huge increase. The focus was on the most relevant ones.
Having said that, your question is right. Should we be looking more broadly? I think we should. The National Capital Commission, for example, has already said they want to fall under this. We are looking at how they could be added by regulation. There is an intent. This is an important approach that we should be adopting across government.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: I want to thank you, Madam Minister, for being with us this evening. Thanks also to the public servants in attendance. I would like to make a few comments.
[English]
The question I ask myself is: Why is Canada so fixated on just one tool? It is highly likely that global warming will trouble the younger and future generations of Canadians. I know my children talk about it. I don’t want to talk about Conservatives, but I’ll talk to you about the Montreal Protocol.
This is not the first global environmental issue with potentially disastrous consequences that Canada has addressed. Canada played both scientific and geopolitical roles in successfully addressing the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer.
The Montreal Protocol was negotiated in 1987, and the ozone layer is stabilizing. On that issue, Canada established first a technology panel to determine whether there was a pathway available to get off the CFCs that were causing the problem. Canada did not put a tax on deodorants. It used regulations and incentives, and they worked.
First, has the Government of Canada conducted or commissioned a study to determine what, if any, technical pathways are available to enable Canada to actually meet its commitment made in Paris?
Second, if it has, what are the pathways and which ones has the government chosen to take? Canadians deserve to know.
Third, if it has not, does it intend to establish whether or not the commitment it has made is actually technically feasible for the Freds and Marthas of this world?
Ms. McKenna: You make an excellent point. The Montreal Protocol is an example of a Conservative Prime Minister who took action on one of the biggest challenges that I was thinking about when I grew up, which was the hole in the ozone layer. I thought we were all going to die of cancer.
It was highly successful. In fact, I was with former Prime Minister Mulroney in Montreal just last year when we celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. It was the most successful international agreement.
You have to look at different tools for different measures. I think that there are very good lessons for that. We also talked about how he tackled acid rain. One of the ways he did that was putting a price on pollution.
When you think about technology and how to incent technology in the most efficient manner, the good news about businesses, as I’ve learned, is that if they have to pay more they will figure out ways to pay less. That is why putting a price on pollution is seen as the most efficient way to reduce emissions because it fosters the innovation you need.
This has been proven. There is a number of examples. If you look at British Columbia, they had a price on pollution. When it was going up, their emissions were going down. They had the fastest growing economy in the country and a thriving clean tech sector. You can also look at the Nobel Prize winner in economics who also demonstrated this.
Technology is certainly part of the solution. We’re making historic investments in clean technology companies, but certainly putting a price on pollution also incents the solutions we want. I’ve seen that when I talked to the 30 or so companies that have signed on to the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition that supports putting a price on pollution. That includes all major banks, the companies in the resource sector, as well as consumer goods companies.
There is an opportunity. I think it’s all hands on deck, but pricing pollution is critical if we are to meet our targets. Also, it is very important to take advantage of the $30 trillion economic opportunity of clean growth and the solutions I see in China that they’re looking for.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister, for your presence.
Ms. McKenna: I really appreciate all your interest. I think it’s extremely helpful. We have to ensure that we have robust legislation. Thank you.
The Chair: For our second panel, we welcome from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Stephen Lucas, Gail Haarsma and Hilary Geller, who will remain with us, and from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Nick Xenos, Executive Director, Centre for Greening Government.
It is my understanding that you do not have any remarks or statements to make but that you are here to answer questions.
Senator Mockler: I guess we have the same objective, which is trying to find the best solution for Canadians. Tell me if I am wrong. If I am, I want you to explain why I am wrong.
Have you looked at a feasibility study? Too often we say it’s about the carbon tax and that within Bill C-57 we want to look at an approach. We heard the honourable minister a few minutes ago talking about B.C., but the fact of the matter, if you look at the carbon tax in B.C., is that it was introduced on Canada Day in 2008. The statistics on the consumption of gasoline is available for the last nine years. You can look at the graph, but I will give you the numbers.
Statistics Canada reports that in 2017, B.C. consumed with that tax 4.94 billion litres of gasoline. In 2008, it was 4.47 billion litres, for an increase of 10.5 per cent.
This says that we have to revisit our pathways if we are to implement the jurisdiction you’re asking us to consider. How can we explain that, if we look at taxes? Have we had an actual technical feasibility study to prove that it can work?
Mr. Lucas: Perhaps I’ll speak a bit more broadly in responding.
In the context as actually outlined in the current Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and in the updates to it, the overall climate plan established by first ministers in Canada has over 50 different measures in it. It includes pricing pollution, as the minister noted, but also complementary measures from building codes and standards, to vehicle efficiency standards, to storing carbon in forests and agricultural soils, to increasing energy efficiency.
There was technical work supporting those. There was a process that involved experts, federal, provincial and territorial officials, business and other stakeholders in 2016 that looked through hundreds of pages. A report was made public that had a broad range of measures. In fact, four different reports made public that outlined those.
In addition, more broadly in terms of looking at technology pathways, the government published in 2016 a series of forward-looking scenarios, looking at different technology-based pathways in our mid-century strategy, and looking beyond 2030 to 2050 at the combination of technologies for deeper reductions in emissions in the context of a growing economy.
Those types of individual measures get captured under the relevant goals and objectives in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.
In the context of British Columbia, there have been published studies on emission reductions achieved through the particular policy, in the context of a growing population and economy. Those are publicly available.
Senator Richards: This is an old debate. Why carbon tax and not cap and trade?
Cap and trade seems to have a fair possibility of containing carbon and trading off the amount of energy a company uses. I am wondering why we go with carbon tax and not cap and trade.
The Chair: I want to remind senators that we are discussing Bill C-57. This is not related to the bill, but do you want to answer?
Mr. Lucas: I was going to note that in the context of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change, the government’s approach recognizes the systems that provinces develop, which include the cap and trade systems in the context of Quebec and now Nova Scotia, as well as other pricing systems from British Columbia to Alberta. I’ll leave it at that.
Senator Patterson: I would like to ask a question of the deputy minister. The minister told us that greenhouse gas emissions were reducing. She said that in her opening remarks.
We’re currently studying the cost of going green. Perhaps you have referred to some of them, but are there reports that will provide detail on the greenhouse gas emissions for Canada that could be provided to this committee or that we could refer to?
Mr. Lucas: Yes, absolutely. We’d be happy to bring those to your attention. Each year Canada issues several reports through the Department of Environment and Climate Change. One of them is an emission trends report where we track both our historical information and the modelling of all climate measures that have been incorporated in law or regulation, with projections out to 2030.
It is an emissions forecast. These reports are 700 or 800 pages. It’s very detailed and based on observation, analysis, and economic and environmental modelling. That includes reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change every two years. In the alternating years, we provide for full transparency in our emission trends report.
In addition, we release on an observational and reporting basis a national inventory report based on the recording of firms ontheir emission. It provides the historical reference point that we then use to update our modelling out into the future.
We issue several reports each year. We would be happy to bring those to the attention of the committee.
Senator Patterson: Is the trend that greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing?
Mr. Lucas: In Canada, effectively what we’ve seen in recent years is that they switched from increasing to stabilizing or flatlining and are starting to go down. The forward projection to 2030 and the emission trends report we released in December 2017 showed the single biggest drop in forecasted emissions in 2030 as a result of the measures developed with provinces and territories.
Senator Neufeld: The graphs I have seen are a bit different from that. We have had them here at our committee. If you say they have dropped, how much have they dropped? How many tonnes in aggregate?
Just tell me, not taking into account future stuff. I am talking about now. That is the question from Senator Patterson. It’s about now, not in 2030 after you close all the coal plants and everything.
How much has it dropped? Would 2015 be the last year for which you would have documentation?
Mr. Lucas: Yes. My team has shown that it has dropped about 4 per cent from 2005 to 2016.
Senator Neufeld: That is from 2005.
Mr. Lucas: That is the base year. As I said, as a result of the measures that are now in legislative regulation or have been announced, there is a very significant drop looking out to 2030. That’s what we published.
Senator Neufeld: That is if everything happens the way it is supposed to on paper. That is not real.
It is interesting that it is from 2005 until now. We had the minister say that the Conservatives did nothing. Obviously something must have taken place from 2005 to 2015. If you take from 2015 to now, it would be interesting to see what it has dropped.
I leave that just for the record.
[Translation]
The Chair: The time allowed for questions is up. It has been very interesting, and we thank you for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)