Time for activist minister to deliver

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/07/2022 (1475 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault, a former professional environmentalist given to rappelling down tall structures, has suffered the fate of most environmental crusaders who suddenly find themselves thrust into the machinery of government they have long disparaged: high expectations followed by deep disappointment.

Don’t heap all the blame on Guilbeault. His government is rigidly controlled through the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the number-one priority being imposed on Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is climate-change mitigation — that is, reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions.

The sooner we transition to a carbon-neutral economy, the better. But, as the federal commissioner of environment and sustainable development has pointed out, government has consistently underrated the difficulty of meeting ambitious emission reduction targets.

Just how sticky the transition away from fossil energy will be is now unfolding at the gas pump. The seven per cent annual turnover in the vehicle fleet isn’t going to lead to quick electrification of transportation, and the huge increase in renewable electrical energy supply required for the transition is not even on the drawing board.

The big emitters, in spite of big talk — blah, blah, blah, as activist Greta Thunberg put it — are backpeddling like crazy.

The conclusion is obvious: weaning eight billion human beings from dependence on fossil energy cannot be done in time to contain global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In fact, we are likely to see a three- to five-degree increase by the end of the century.

Climate-change adaptation ought to be Canada’s top environmental priority. Surely this reality has penetrated the barium chamber of the PMO?

Admittedly, government has launched a consultation process to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, a tried and true Ottawa ploy to move items off the stovetop and onto the warming tray. In this case, the deep thinkers in the bureaucracy have established several “expert advisory tables” to dispense wisdom on adaptation.

The subject areas are: health and well-being, resilient natural and built infrastructure, thriving natural environment, strong and resilient economy, and disaster resilience and security. “Partners” and “stakeholders” will then be engaged, and finally we of the general public will get to put in our two cents’ worth. All this is grist for the federal mill producing a “national” adaptation strategy by the end of the year.

The foundation of this enterprise — the “expert advisory tables” — are populated by more than 100 worthies, most well-known to the federal bureaucracy. Each table is co-chaired by a federal bureaucrat and, in three cases, by an academic, and for the other two tables a representatives of the Indigenous community and the insurance industry.

No one with any direct representation of provincial interests — odd, considering provincial governments own and manage the resources and deliver most of our services — sits at any of these tables. Oh, and the next phase of the process will consult “partners” and “stakeholders,” to be sure.

However, given that Guilbeault, like his predecessors, has shunned any serious dialogue with his provincial counterparts, it is unclear into which of these categories the provinces will fall. In any event, it is already apparent this is a federal rather than a national strategy.

Each table has produced preliminary findings focusing on the big picture — vision — and broad goals for which the current federal government will have to be re-elected at least twice if it is to held accountable. It is almost certain the resulting strategy — particularly since the final version will be written by politicos and bureaucrats — will suffer from the same flaw of most government strategies.

It will be all things to all people, designed to achieve the maximum political impact rather than — as real strategies must do — identifying the absolutely vital areas on which to concentrate limited resources (notice the finance minister is already signalling a slowdown of federal largesse).

There’s opportunity here. Rather than wasting his time on shepherding a process to produce a document that’s neither national nor strategic, Guilbeault might depart from script and get serious about a promise his government made three years ago: establishing a meaningful Canada Water Agency.

After all, do we need an army of “experts” to tell us insulating our food supply from the impacts of climate change is our most important priority? The blueprint — currently being mangled by his own bureaucrats — was clear: a regionally-based stand-alone agency focused on agricultural water issues as well as co-ordination of the billions of dollars of current federal water programming.

Minister Guilbeault, come out west, rappel down a grain elevator or two, talk to your provincial counterparts and set in motion the most meaningful thing you could accomplish as ECC minister: establish an agency whose principle mandate is adapting our water management systems, particularly those vital to food production — starting here in Canada’s bread basket — to the inevitable impacts of climate change.

Norman Brandson was deputy minister of the former Manitoba departments of environment, water stewardship and conservation from 1990 to 2006.