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.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Let's take a look at the text here; chapter 10, I believe it is. What pops up again and again in Mr. Thompson's reports, and through the commissioner's office now for several years, is that it's always difficult to understand just who's in charge of what. I understand and I sympathize with the notion of horizontal management, and that it's three or four departments coming together. PWGSC, I just heard, is playing a more prominent role now in leading this charge.

I want to table, for the interest of colleagues and for those who are here as witnesses, Bill C-474, Mr. Godfrey's bill. It's the opposition bill that is going to call upon Canada to create a new sustainable development act. Flowing from that would be a new office at PCO, and perhaps even a new cabinet committee where the buck would stop, where somebody would be accountable and responsible for driving this change that clearly isn't being driven through the 28 mandatory departmental sustainable development strategies.

If that kind of centralized authority resided in PCO, where they steer and don't row, would that help all of you achieve your green procurement objectives through the federal government? Could you help me understand this?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for appearing. I think we're getting some very good guidance here on what direction we need to take.

I want to draw your attention to the schedule appended to the end of Bill C-474. There are 10 broad goals and dozens of potentially affected areas within each of those. I think you've hinted, Mr. Meadowcroft, and you as well, Mr. Mitchell, that perhaps this may be too many areas to be focusing on in terms of measuring or objectives to achieve. When you're talking about three or four key objectives--we once had five priorities for a plan--do you have any advice on which areas we should be focusing in on or what we should go for?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Meadowcroft, your comment on carbon capture and storage fascinated me, and I hope I allow enough time for some further comments on that. It's one of the solutions that I think the world is counting on. I think you said you had seven different countries you were looking at, so hopefully I'll allow enough time to discuss that.

We have Bill C-474 before us today. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Meadowcroft, I'm going to be asking you to provide some input to this committee as to your opinions of this bill.

I think you've received the original bill and then a bill with the changes proposed by the Liberals. I'm going to ask you not to comment on that second one, because in fact we each have amendments we're going to be making, and the proposals from the Liberals at this point are not the relevant pieces of work we're dealing with right now. It may give you an idea of the direction being proposed by one of the parties around this table, but what we're discussing today has been sent from the House, and it is Bill C-474, unamended.

How would you suggest that Bill C-474 be changed? I took a lot of notes as you were speaking. Mr. Mitchell, you said it could be this bill or another, but that the focus needs to require the government to include... I think you agreed with Mr. Meadowcroft that it's an integral part of the process that we look at the economic, social, and environmental components as the government does anything.

The most recent report we had from the commissioner reported on 14 different departments; nine of them were unsatisfactory and five of them are satisfactory now. We have a lot of work to do. As has been pointed out over the last 15 years, governments have not received a good report from the commissioner. Is that because of the structure, or is it the lack of will? What needs to change? How can this bill before us, Bill C-474...?

That's what this committee is tasked with. We're not to send back to the House some window dressing, another bill to make it appear that we care about the environment, but something of substance that will have an effect we all would like to see, so how does it need to change? Do we need to have adequate input?

We have this meeting and one more. That will be a total of four meetings with witnesses, and then we go into clause-by-clause consideration. Are we rushing it, or can we do it in that short period of time and come up with something that will be good and have a positive effect?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The late afternoon of May 8 is the deadline for any amendments you want to make to Bill C-474. Does everybody have that date as well?

We'll send out a notice about this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I can't either. It's an interesting development, though, for them to bring legislation like this. We've agreed with the Commissioner that we need to do better as a government, and we've committed to this goal. We committed to a review, which will be reported in October. In the last report, there were 14 departments—nine were unsatisfactory, five have improved and are now satisfactory. We still have a lot of work to do as a government.

I find this bill very interesting and challenging.

I'd like to switch the focus of my questioning to the end of Bill C-474, where we have the schedule. I'd like to preface my comments with a reference to your paper. On page 7 it says:

Each federal department has a sustainable development strategy. The problem is that the strategies list a series of initiatives without showing how the initiatives will meet overall sustainability targets. This problem is caused by two deficiencies. First, measurable targets do not exist for most sustainability goals. Second, even where there are measurable targets, the strategies do not show quantifiably how the target will be attained.

This is the heart of my question. As we look at this grouping, when you expand on it, it's huge. How has it been prioritized? Has it been costed? What thought has gone into the creation of the schedule? How is it going to be paid for?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The former Liberal government was held to account by the Commissioner of the Environment. The Commissioner, when last before this committee, said that during the last 15 years, approximately, the Government of Canada has had a hard time achieving its aspirations, delivering on the announcements that were made. Have you or the Suzuki Foundation had a working relationship with some of the same people who now are introducing Bill C-474? My ultimate question is, why was there no action over the last 13 years? Why now, when in opposition, are they introducing Bill C-474? Why was it not introduced when those same members were in government? Did they believe that it would not have passed muster. Would it not have been successful? Would it not have moved forward if it was introduced by the previous government? Why now, as the opposition?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I read your paper and found it very interesting. If time permits, I'll have some questions about it. Fundamentally, it's Bill C-474 that we see before us. It's not your bill, but it is a bill that you helped bring to the House of Commons. Is that a fair comment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I think we've already heard some very good testimony. I've found it very interesting.

Mr. Sadik, I'm going to focus my questions initially on you. You're with the David Suzuki Foundation. What part did you and the foundation play in the bill we see before us, Bill C-474?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's like sustainable development: there may be some definitions that are generally accepted, but the actual on-the-ground application is not. Therefore, if what we are doing is writing law and making the government available to a suit in court if in contravention of the law, I'm always wary of presenting law that is not defined. When we were working through Mr. Layton's bill there was a prescription to greenhouse gas emissions. We defined it to know exactly what it is, so if the government breaks the targets, the law, Canadians have a clear course for direct action.

I'm worried that in the motherhood statements of this bill--the general prescriptions for sustainable development enshrined into law--what dangers do we run in not having it prescriptive and defined? I'm worried that if it's too broad its application will be meaningless, which is certainly not the intention of Mr. Godfrey. In trying to cast such a wide net....

I want to get into a specific. If the tar sands were an undeveloped resource right now--just a known quantity, but we were unsure of its potential and full development--and Bill C-474 existed, how would we do it differently, or would we do it differently? Is there anything in here that would direct the hand of government in setting out the regulations for industry with respect to a project like that?

[Warren Newman, Senior General Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a brief statement to make. As I understand it, it may have been distributed.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to appear today before your committee and to respond to questions from members of the committee with regard to the constitutionality of Bill C-474, as concerns the division of legislative powers between Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

Before getting into the subject matter, I should express a few words of caution. I am a constitutional lawyer in the Department of Justice of Canada, and as such, I advise the government of Her Majesty in Right of Canada on constitutional issues. I am thus a law officer of the federal Crown and not of the institutions of Parliament.

Moreover, Bill C-474 is a private member's bill, not a governmental measure, and you understand that I will abstain from commenting upon the wisdom of such a piece of legislation, or from rendering, on behalf of the committee, a legal opinion on the scope of the provisions it contains.

That said, I have read with interest the Hansard report of the debates on this bill and notably, the federal-provincial concerns expressed by the honourable Member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Mr. Bigras.

I shall be happy to respond, to the extent possible, to your questions concerning the division of legislative powers and the constitutionality of this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's get started. Two of our three guests are here. I'm sure the third one will be here very soon.

I want to welcome you both. We've seen you before. Of course, we're looking at the scope of Bill C-474. That will be our focus today.

Following our usual procedure, I'd ask you to please try to keep it to ten minutes or less. Then we'll go around and all members will have an opportunity to ask the questions.

Pierre, I think you were here first, so let's start with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would suggest that maybe Tibet is not part of their number one issue regarding the environment, but you can ask about environmental perspectives. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about that.

As far as the other dates, of course, today we're dealing with Bill C-474. On Wednesday we'll be dealing with Bill C-474. So today it's basically the scope, on Wednesday it's the structure, and on Monday it's the jurisdiction. We have confirmed witnesses for those three meetings.

Then I'm requesting that on Wednesday, May 7, we have the new Environment Commissioner come, and we've tentatively found that that would be possible, although that tightens the.... There is going to be a report on May 6 from the Auditor General, so it fits pretty well with our new Environment Commissioner, and then we have a deadline for amendments the following day. So after witnesses on Monday, it gives you three days to complete amendments and get them in to the clerk by the afternoon of Thursday, May 8. Then, of course, we'd begin clause-by-clause on the following Monday.

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, everybody understands that.

Okay, that is Bill C-377, and Mr. Cullen wasn't here to enjoy this moment with us.

You've BlackBerryed him? Good.

Mr. Godfrey, at that first meeting on April 28 we would be looking at the report. We would be finalizing that so the clerks can get that all put together for me to table later that week. We could then move on to Bill C-474 and try to arrange witnesses for, say, the last hour of that day, and then again on the Wednesday.

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

Mr. Chairman, since the beginning, I have been rather disappointed with the governing party's attitude with regard to Bill C-377. I must conclude that the governing party—and I will not name its members—is acting in bad faith. They keep filibustering in order to torpedo Bill C-377 and this is totally unacceptable.

If the member believes that his privileges have been breached, look into the matter and take it under advisement. Nothing prevents us from continuing to consider the bill as it is. I find Mr. Watson's demand to move to other business, namely Bill C-474 , completely ridiculous since the point of privilege does not deal with the bill but rather the rights of the member.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to take this point of privilege under advisement. For the time being, we must continue with our consideration of Bill C-377. I am very disappointed in this government and the way it behaves. We are here to work for the public good and the government is having us lose precious time. This wastes taxpayers' money and I do not believe the people of Quebec and Canada expect us, as parliamentarians, to behave in such a fashion. So I ask the government to get a grip and to work constructively in order to make Bill C-377 acceptable to both the government and the opposition.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

There was no indication on the steering committee that this parliamentary secretary was put back on to. This is the work plan Canadians that should be aware of. This work plan was agreed on by all members of this committee--all members of this committee, including this parliamentary secretary. He came to the steering committee and this committee and agreed with the work plan. I asked the clerk yesterday, and he's given me, with gracious help, the actual time. We're now at 12 hours and 18 minutes of deliberate filibuster by this government. It's 12 hours and 18 minutes--and counting, in fact.

Do you want to talk about privileges, Mr. Warawa? What about the privileges we have to do our jobs as members of Parliament, the privileges we have to go through this work plan to deal with this bill, to deal with Bill C-474, to deal with your national water strategy--which has disappeared--and to deal with our water study on the oil sands? That's our privilege, isn't it, Mr. Warawa?

Why are you deliberately taking instructions from your House leader to obstruct this committee?