Bill C-474 (Historical)

Federal Sustainable Development Act

An Act to require the development and implementation of a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and the development of goals and targets with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment provides the legal framework for developing and implementing a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy that will make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament.
The enactment gives a committee of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. It also provides for the creation of the Sustainable Development Office to develop and maintain systems and procedures to monitor progress on implementation of the Strategy and for the creation of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council to offer the Government of Canada advice on the Strategy.
It requires certain departments and agencies to develop and implement sustainable development strategies that contain objectives and action plans for each department and agency, that comply with the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and that contribute to the attainment of the Strategy’s objectives.
It also amends the Auditor General Act to give the Commissioner the mission to monitor the progress that these departments and agencies make in implementing the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and to assess the Sustainable Development Office’s report of the implementation of the Strategy. As well, it sets out the Commissioner’s powers and obligations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think what you're saying, Mr. Godfrey, is that you're moving that Bill C-474 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 7 with the following in clause 12: “Performance agreements of senior officials in departments shall include provisions”.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

--and the environmental evaluation agency.

If they don't want to hear from the National Round Table, I don't have a problem with it. If we keep the witnesses to a half hour, which is the norm, that gives plenty of time for questioning. When we give them the seven or ten minutes, it often is not that long. To start off by saying we're not going to hear from the witnesses that are there, that we're going to deal with them on a question-by-question basis and the only chance they will get to speak is when we ask them a question...I don't favour that.

I don't want to waste a lot of time on this. I want to get back to Bill C-474 and finish up with that.

Let's call the question. I think it's out of the norm, and I don't think it's fair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The meeting will come to order. This is a meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We are undertaking the study of Bill C-474 of Mr. Godfrey. We're delighted that Mr. Warawa and Mr. Godfrey have arrived, and have done, I gather, a bit of negotiating in relation to some amendments. I trust that this delay will help to shorten the meeting in some fashion.

Before we begin, I want to ask if we have agreement to the following motion, which the clerk has offered to the committee regarding what will happen on Wednesday in view of the fact that Minister Baird is not available since he'll be travelling.

The motion would be:

THAT THE COMMITTEE consider the Main Estimates 2008-2009 and invite the following to appear before it on May 28, 2008,

The Associate Deputy Minister of Environment Canada (supported by his officials); and

The President of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy (supported by his officials); and

The chief executive officer of the national parks agency (supported by his officials);

and President of the Canadian Environmental Evaluation Agency (supported by officials); and

That the Department and Agencies be allotted 8 to 10 minutes for presentation.

That is the motion, and I think my reading of that would mean that they'd each get eight to ten minutes for a presentation. I know some people may have some views on that, and I look forward to hearing them.

Would someone like to propose this motion so we can have what I would hope would be a very quick discussion on it? It is available on paper, and it is being circulated as we speak.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Good. So we're all using that as a reference.

I'll just read clause 3:

The purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework for developing and implementing a National Sustainable Development Strategy that will dramatically accelerate the elimination of major environmental problems and make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament.

The amendment I've introduced is to change the word “national” to “federal”. We did hear from a number of witnesses that this is, I believe, a recommended change. When we heard from Mr. Martin on Monday of this week, he spoke to that specifically in his speech to us. He said “national” implies that there is direct provincial involvement.

As we all know, we have not had direct provincial involvement. We haven't had the provinces, other than New Brunswick. This is one of the issues that Mr. Bigras brought to our attention when we were looking at the schedule in the first group of witnesses. I don't know if it was turbidity or density, or what Mr. Bigras brought up, but it was a very important point that he brought to the attention of the committee, the importance of what the implications are of Bill C-474 for the provinces.

I just want to read, to remind us what Mr. Martin said, that, first, the bill would require the development of a national as opposed to a federal sustainable development strategy—and in the interests of time, instead of saying “sustainable development strategy”, I'll say “SDS” from now on.

As the committee is aware, responsibility for the environment is not defined in the Constitution Act. Over time, a variety of mechanisms have been developed to facilitate federal-provincial cooperation in improving environmental quality in Canada, including a wide range of work done under the authority of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

As a practical matter, if we expect the provinces to be full and willing partners in the implementation of a national sustainable development strategy, it would be important to engage them in its development, including the definition of its goals and targets and in a discussion of which level of government would be held accountable for their achievement.

The other person I would like to read a quick quote from here is, in our first group of witnesses, Mr. Pierre Sadik, who said in his presentation:

By virtue of the Constitution, this bill can only apply to items that fall within federal jurisdiction.

Sustainable development affects all levels of government and needs to affect all levels of Canadian society, and it does in a positive or negative way. I believe the author of the bill, Mr. Godfrey, is hoping to achieve positive results from a positive bill and to have positive effects on a truly sustainable development strategy, or SDS.

I started off my comments suggesting that we have the bill changed so that it lists “federal” instead of “national”. That is what the motion is.

I have a subsequent motion that I'll be making later.

Throughout the bill, the word “national” SDS is used. This is the first clause we're addressing, so that's why this is the first opportunity to deal with this.

In the bill, as we go clause by clause, every time it says “national”, I'll be making that amendment. But starting off with this, I think it's very obvious that we focus on making sure the different federal departments are held to account.

As we remember, when the environment commissioner presented the report, we had this report in October. Then we had the report in March, I believe it was. Actually, this was the report from March, and we heard that of the 14 departments, nine were unsatisfactory and five were satisfactory. For many years--over a decade--there have been problems with our not doing satisfactory work with the different departments. What I'm hoping is that the focus will change and now be on the federal government instead of the national and on holding the federal government and the departments to account.

I look forward to hearing from others, but I think changing the word “national” to “federal” is a step in the right direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I think what we're seeing is a rush to complete Bill C-474, and the reality is that much more thought needs to go into it and a lot more consultation, particularly with the provinces.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Good, let's go to the schedule.

I'm looking at the schedule, and I actually compared it with the schedule listed in Toward a National Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada, presented by the David Suzuki Foundation. It's a very interesting document, but word for word, it's exactly the same schedule.

So there are short-, medium-, and long-term requirements in this. And as you pointed out, within a very short period of time there would have to be a cost-benefit analysis done of this. We're talking of over 400 substances, when you include the national pollutant release inventory. It's a huge amount of work, with a broad range of issues, from livestock density to turbidity and automobile dependence. As was pointed out recently by my colleague, municipal waste is there, as are nuclear waste, neurotoxins, and carbon monoxide emissions. So it's very broad. And when you include the pollutant release inventory, it's over 400 substances. But there was no analysis done, no rationale for why it's this particular list or requirement, or why these are the issues that should be on this list. From previous witnesses, we've heard that it would be much more practical to have a small list, instead of this broad, all-encompassing list.

Does the department have the resources to meet what the bill is requiring? And is it realistic to come up with regulations in that short period of time without consultation with the provinces? It seems like an impossible and unrealistic task to do what's being asked for in Bill C-474.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Martin, I have questions for you. Thank you for your presentation. I found it very interesting.

I believe you broke your presentation into three themes—first of all, that the government has agreed with the last report from the commissioner on sustainable development and that we are doing a review department by department. You said that the review is currently under way. It has several areas of focus, including examining options for a strengthened framework or overall strategy with clear goals and indicators. You're confident that this work will be completed by the October deadline set by the commissioner. So governments agreed with that, and that's ongoing.

At the same time, we have Bill C-474, which is a bill on sustainable development. Are you suggesting that Bill C-474 may be duplicating some of the work that's already being done, or is it not addressing what needs to be addressed?

[Michael Martin]

Thank you.

I was explaining the current situation with respect to the sustainable development strategies.

In December of 2006, on tabling the fourth round of sustainable development strategies, the Minister of the Environment specifically noted the commissioner's observation in 2005 that the failure to develop a federal sustainable development strategy “ will leave Canadians and parliamentarians without a clear idea of the government's overall plan for sustainable development, how it will get there, and what progress it has made.” The minister noted that the government agreed with the commissioner that more needs to be done to improve sustainable development reporting, and indicated that a range of options would be examined, including legislation, with a view to making further progress towards putting sustainability at the heart of the government's activities.

Environment Canada began a review at that time, with a view to developing options for improvements for the fifth round of strategies beginning in 2009. Subsequently, the commissioner also undertook a 10-year retrospective evaluation of the existing approach and recommended that the government undertake a thorough review by October 2008, a recommendation which the government accepted.

I should tell the committee that Environment Canada has worked collaboratively with the commissioner and his staff throughout this process. The review that is currently underway has several areas of focus, including examining options for a strengthened framework or overall strategy with clear goals and indicators. I am confident that this work will be completed by the October deadline set by the commissioner.

Turning now to Bill C-474, I would like to note two issues that relate to the possible or the potential implementation of the bill as currently drafted—and this is based on my own examination of the bill.

First, the bill would require the development of a national, as opposed to a federal, sustainable development strategy. As the committee is aware, responsibility for the environment is not defined in the Constitution Act. Over time, a variety of mechanisms have been developed to facilitate federal-provincial cooperation in improving environmental quality in Canada, including a wide range of work done under the authority of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

As a practical matter, if we expect the provinces to be full and willing partners in the implementation of a national sustainable development strategy, it would, in my view, be important to engage them in its development, including the definition of its goals and its targets and in a discussion of which level of government would be held accountable for their achievement.

That brings me to my second point—namely, the goals and targets that are currently proposed in the draft bill. I think the commissioner has been very clear that defining measurable goals and developing performance indicators to track progress towards those goals is essential to any effective sustainable development strategy. Indeed, these are characteristics of effective, accountable public management.

As currently drafted, clause 8, for example, requires the establishment, within two years of the act coming into force, of short-, medium-, and long-term targets and an implementation strategy for meeting each item listed in column 2 of the bill's schedule.

Clause 10 subsequently requires the minister, following the tabling of the strategy in the House, to make regulations prescribing targets and caps for each item. I assume these regulations would be based on regulatory authorities in other existing statutes, as the bill does not provide any new regulatory authorities.

As I understand it, these two provisions together would therefore require the government, potentially, to prepare regulations for all 60 of the items listed in the schedule, including all 323 of the discrete substances covered by the national pollutant release inventory, and to do so within 30 days of the tabling of the national sustainable development strategy.

Regulation can be a very important instrument in improving environmental outcomes. However, if regulation is to be successfully implemented, it requires good science, close cost-benefit analysis, and careful consultation with those who would potentially be subject to or impacted by any new obligations.

Experience suggests that there would be major challenges in developing such a large number of regulations in such a short timeframe. Furthermore, regulations may not be the most appropriate instrument for addressing each of the many items listed in the schedule.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First off, on behalf of the members of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to say that we stand with you in solidarity during the trying times you are experiencing. We know that your communities were greatly affected by disasters, and I wanted to say that we stand behind you, as we have in the past and will continue to do in the future.

Minister, you or your officials have probably read Bill C-474, which sets out 10 worthy and desirable objectives, which, at the same time, are more than simple objectives. You said that the problem wasn't setting objectives, but rather finding ways to achieve them. You repeatedly spoke of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment as a forum for discussion, cooperation and partnerships.

Am I to understand that you prefer a forum such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to a piece of federal legislation that sets out not only the objectives, but also their various components?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. Minister Haché, I would like to thank you for coming, at least in your virtual presence.

I presume that you have read Bill C-474. How does it impact on your current activities?

[Roland Haché]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have prepared something here in writing, which I will convey to you.

I also want to say good afternoon to the committee members.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to speak about New Brunswick's efforts to ensure sustainable development, in the context of the committee's deliberations on Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy.

At this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce you to two of the personnel who work with us in the Department of Environment. The first is Kim Hughes, the director of sustainable planning. Also, we have Liane Macfarlane, who's the director of policy and strategic planning. When it comes to questions later, they will be happy to answer any technical questions the committee may have.

The province of New Brunswick is entering into a period of change that will make itself sufficient and that will promote sustainable development.

Our deliberations regarding this approach for building sustainable communities is an important element of our self-sufficiency program in New Brunswick, as developed in our action plan. A copy of this action plan, along with all other pertinent documents, will be available to the committee members.

I hope that this brief presentation will clarify for you our approach to sustainable development.

Let us now go to slide number 2.

Sustainable development is about the sustainability challenge. Basically, we humans are using up our resources--our natural capital--faster than they are available, and we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth's ecosystem. As part of this challenge we need to focus on solving the gap, the ecological overshoot, between the earth's carrying capacity and our consumption habits.

One of the symptoms of exceeding our carrying capacity is a changing climate. As a result of climate change, New Brunswick's coastal communities are and will be affected by sea level rise, erosion, and salt water intrusion. Communities such as Le Goulet, in northern New Brunswick, and Pointe-du-Chêne, in the south of New Brunswick, are directly threatened by the impact of sea level rise. Inland water resources, both their quality and quantity, are also impacted. Flooding events in the Saint John River Valley are now affecting communities and people in a large area of the province. Prime Minister Harper recently visited this area to observe the flood damage in person.

People today are more aware of issues such as climate change, the links between pollution and health, the energy crunch, water shortages, and floods. This awareness is the basis upon which we can build change. In New Brunswick we are using this to advance the concept of sustainable communities, the foundation of which is sustainable development. It means changing the way we do things. There are incredible opportunities for innovation.

In New Brunswick, we believe that sustainable development means the integration of economic, environmental and social factors into decision-making. Environmental, economic and social issues cannot be dealt with as if they were independent and parallel entities. A balance of these three factors, for current and feature needs, will translate into economic growth, social progress and environmental stewardship, and this is often considered as a triple result of our decisions regarding sustainable development.

This balance can also be seen as resulting from a coordination of the decisions regarding financial capital, human capital and business practices.

Let us now go on to slide number 4.

New Brunswick's approach to sustainable development is based on this integration of environmental, economic, and social goals. It is also about a process to engage citizens and empower decision-makers. We understand that to be successful, any activities and actions toward sustainability must be undertaken with partners who plan their future together in a sustainable manner. It is about guiding the right development to the appropriate location. Ultimately, it's about building livable communities and sustainable communities that plan for the future at the local, regional, and provincial levels.

I would like to give you a few examples of our way of implementing sustainable development methods and building sustainable communities.

First, we created a structure and a mandate to support the planning of sustainable development in New Brunswick. The Department of the Environment is in charge of environmental legislation and legislation on community development. We created the Sustainable Planning Branch, which is in charge of coordinating planning, land use, the use of water and air, resources as well as the monitoring of a network of planning district boards which are responsible for providing development services at the local level and for giving support to municipalities.

Secondly, we are changing our relations and partnerships in order to promote sustainable development. The sustainable community initiative and the more recent study of sustainable communities in the greater Saint John region are innovative approaches that we adopted to promote the concept of sustainable development.

Third, we are developing tools to build sustainable communities based on a specific initiative of durable community design, which applies conservation design principles to the development of land lots. Moreover, we are carrying on with the development of our program for contaminated sites.

Now let us go on to slide number 6, please.

In November 2007, the greater Saint John sustainable communities case study was launched. The objective was to gain an understanding of how to build sustainable communities. It included 35 opinion leaders from the five communities of the greater Saint John region and senior-level participation from five provincial government departments. It also explored transforming relationships and how we deal with communities at large and government departments. Copies of the final report on this initiative can be found online at our department website.

So what have we learned? Well, a number of actions were identified as outcomes in the areas of leadership, strategic approaches, meaningful public engagement, and the creation of sustainable community plans.

The case study is strongly linked to our government's self-sufficiency objectives. With this case study, we are creating the building blocks necessary to implement a strategic approach to regional planning. It will assist us in working to develop the mosiac of sustainable communities throughout a self-sufficient New Brunswick.

Slide 7, please.

The design of sustainable communities for urban development is an avant-garde approach in urban development that tries to mitigate the negative human impact on the environment and to enable the community to function by using another planning design. This approach allows the developer to cut down on infrastructure costs and to increase residential density, while still protecting the environment. It gives residents various choices of residence with access to nearby natural spaces as well as to opportunities to reduce their impact on their environment. For example, one of the projects brought together many partners, including a private promoter, the Town of Dieppe, the School of Planning of Dalhousie University, several provincial departments, the University of Moncton, the New Brunswick Community College, as well as a local elementary school.

The project was developed based on sustainability principles so as to build liveable communities. I am glad to state that the sustainable community design initiative in New Brunswick is arousing interest all over Canada. We contacted promoters, not only in our province but also in other regions of Canada, for example, in the cities of Calgary, Alberta, and of Trois-Rivières and Sutton, Quebec.

Let us now continue with slide number 8, please.

New Brunswick employs an innovative and proven approach to contaminated site management. The Atlantic risk-based corrective action approach has been developed by many partners, including business interests and Atlantic government regulators.

I am pleased to inform you today that the Atlantic risk-based corrective action approach has been used in New Brunswick to remediate and improve more than 1,450 contaminated sites since 1999. This technical tool can be used to facilitate the redevelopment of brownfield lands previously abandoned and unsuitable for development in our communities.

Slide 9, please.

This is an example of the redevelopment of contaminated sites in Moncton. It would be interesting to look at the photographs taken before and after decontamination. You will see that there was considerable change.

The Government of New Brunswick and the people in the Moncton region are very glad that the site that used to serve for repairing trains, which is called a brown field, has become a very liveable place.

Slide number 10, please.

In moving to develop a comprehensive provincial brownfield redevelopment plan, we are interested in pursuing a dialogue with the federal government on ways to promote brownfield redevelopment—for example, incentive programs, harmonizing our regulations, and broader adoption of the other CCME brownfield recommendations. These are only three examples of actions we're undertaking to achieve sustainable development.

Slide 11, please.

New Brunswick has created an organization and proposed suggestions to promote sustainable development through the concept of sustainable communities.

However, sustainable development will not be brought about overnight. We are currently modifying our practices in view of our objectives, which means that we are attracting and promoting methods of sustainable development and we are becoming recognized as leaders in this field.

The Department of the Environment and our government both appreciate the values of commitment and innovation displayed by every stakeholder in our effort to standardize decision-making in view of sustainable development. We are on the way to integrating our social, economic and environmental decisions and we are constantly making progress.

We want to make sure that our way of implementing sustainable development is fair, efficient and effective for all the communities in New Brunswick. We also want to build sustainable communities in a self-sufficient province.

Let us go on to slide number 12, please.

I trust that you've found what we're doing in New Brunswick valuable for your deliberations. I would like to thank the committee chair for inviting me to share with you today our vision for sustainable development and our experiences. I welcome the opportunity to answer some of your questions or to consult with my department staff for further information on the initiatives we are pursuing.

Thank you.

[Michael Martin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to be here before you today to assist the committee in its consideration of Bill C-474.

I would like to begin by spending a moment on the Government of Canada's current approach to sustainable development strategies. As you know, government departments have been required to produce sustainable development strategies every three years since 1997, in compliance with the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who is responsible for reviewing these strategies under the act, has been consistently critical of the effectiveness of the strategies as drivers of change.

In December 2006, on tabling the fourth round of sustainable development strategies, the Minister of the Environment specifically noted the commissioner's observation in 2005 that the failure to develop a federal sustainable development strategy “will leave Canadians and parliamentarians...”

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I didn't think this would be a problem, so my apologies.

What I was envisioning was for us to give thought to the witnesses and the impacts of how this is going to affect Bill C-474, the amendments. It takes more than a couple of hours working with staff, so that's why we're suggesting to give us a basic.... If we had the next day to get our thoughts, we meet afterwards, and it will be the 14th before we will be able to realistically have the amendments.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Francis, and Mr. Chair as well.

I want to welcome you again to our committee, as has our chair and others before me. Thank you for being here. We'll have other times and opportunities.

I gather at this point you've been in your desk long enough to have found the calculator, and maybe this question that I'm going to ask is going to take a sophisticated software program to answer. I'm interested in terms of costs for a bill like Bill C-474. I'm wondering if in fact your office has the capacity to report on the 400 or so items listed in the schedule. I conjecture that possibly those reports would simply highlight the lack of dollars for that.

So first off, in your first couple of days on the job, have you been able to calculate the cost of Bill C-474? And in terms of the capacity, do you have the capacity to report on those some 400 items?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I want to welcome Madam Fraser and Commissioner Vaughan. I look forward to working with you. Minister Baird just released a statement saying that accountability and oversight is an important keystone of responsible government. It's also important when it comes to ensuring the health of our environment, and that's why I look forward to working with Mr. Vaughan now and in the future.

I'm sure you've seen this document. We received this about two months ago, and we also had a report in October. At that time, we agreed to a review. In about five months, we'll be reporting back, department by department. We acknowledge that since 1995, since the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment, there have been year after year of shortfalls. In the most recent report of two months ago, we saw that, of the 14 departments audited, five were satisfactory and nine were not. So I believe we have a lot more work to do, and I appreciate your challenges.

This is a politically charged committee, and at times there are shots that are used. Your future comments may or may not be used in that way. In the past, some comments have been turned this way to address the shortcomings of the previous government. But today I'm going to focus on where we go from here—to clean up the environment. We have a duty to make our country healthy—economically, environmentally, and socially—for this generation and those to come.

You focused on two primary topics. You said that:

First, the sustainable development strategies prepared by different agencies and departments are not working. I look forward to working with this committee and all departments and agencies to frame some of the parameters needed to move forward. Again, within five months we'll be reporting back, and we look forward to working with you.

The second point was the environmental petition process. I found the reports from Madam Fraser's office to be interesting reading. They pointed out the importance and the level of participation in the petition process. Of the few people who are aware of this process, there were some who used it repeatedly. When you consider the number of petitions according to the multiplication factor, you find that maybe a lot of people don't know about the process. I look forward to seeing this promoted and made available to average Canadians who are concerned about what the government is doing.

I know you're not here to discussBill C-474, but it has been mentioned. My concern is that we have legislation that is well thought out and that takes the government in the right direction. Our witnesses have been very critical of this bill. Yet we're already rushing toward clause-by-clause and submitting amendments—this before we've finished hearing from the witnesses. That concerns me. But in the end, we as a Parliament are responsible for achieving something that works.

I apologize for rambling a little bit here. My question is, how important is it that we work together, as a political body, to focus on solutions that will see absolute reductions in greenhouse emissions, absolute reductions in pollution for cleaner air, cleaner water? How important is it that we focus on the technological tools we have here in Canada to help Canada and the world?