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.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-57, which amends the Federal Sustainability Act. This is a very important issue, which I will get to in a little bit.

I want to start by saying that it is unfortunate and disgusting that we are once again under a gag order as we debate issues that are so very important not only to us as a society, but also to the future of our planet. Once again, the government is limiting the amount of time we have for debate. It is preventing parliamentarians from debating and improving this bill, to ensure that we have a strong plan for sustainable development. the Liberals are once again breaking a clear promise they made during the election campaign. They are limiting debate times, imposing a gag order on members of Parliament, and not giving us enough time to have a serious debate. Today is Friday, and this is the fifth time this week alone that the Liberals have moved a time allocation motion. For those who are not familiar with the jargon, a time allocation motion means that the government is imposing a gag order a limiting the amount of time for debate.

I think that topics like sustainable development, the United Nations goals, and global warming should be taken seriously by the Liberal government. It should give us enough time to have a thorough, honest debate on this bill, so that we can address all of the details.

It is so important that I am personally convinced, and many of my colleagues here share my opinion, that the environmental issues, the protection of biodiversity, and the fight against climate change are truly the challenge of our generation.

Our children and grandchildren will judge us on our ability to deal with these challenges, our ability to ensure that we maintain a healthy environment, and our ability to prevent global temperatures from increasing by more than 2%, since that could have catastrophic consequences. I do not say that lightly. It has been scientifically proven that the earth's temperature is rising. It has also been proven that the actions of human societies, including our production and consumption activities, are mainly responsible for global warming. Our actions and our decisions are causing global warming and there are many consequences to that, including what is known as extreme weather. In some places, it is much hotter than it used to be, while in others it is much colder. On average, it is much hotter, and there has been an increase in the number and intensity of so-called natural disasters. That means there have been more floods, droughts, forest fires, and hurricanes, and those hurricanes are stronger and cause more damage. We have already seen this sort of thing in Canada. It has been documented and there are reports on the subject. Extreme weather and natural disasters are costing us more and more.

We often hear about cost, about putting a price on pollution and the cost of making greener, more environmentally responsible choices. However, I want to make it clear that there is also a cost to doing nothing and sitting on our hands while disasters break out all around us. This is not just a financial or economic issue, it is a human issue.

I would remind everyone here that former U.S. vice-president Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental advocacy and actions. Why did the Nobel committee decide to award a Nobel Peace Peace to someone who works on environmental and sustainable development issues? There does not seem to be a link, but in fact, there is one. In addition to extreme weather, we are now going to start seeing climate migrants. Mr. Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize because it is a well-known fact that drastically higher temperatures in certain regions, deforestation, and lack of access to water will cause population displacement around the globe and turn millions of people into climate migrants.

Environmental migration can lead to conflict, even armed conflict. That is why the folks at the Nobel committee decided to recognize Al Gore on his work a number of years ago and issued a statement saying that preventing global warming might get us just a bit closer to world peace.

Global warming also has an impact on our ecosystems here. One of our colleagues from northern Canada, the author of Bill C-262, noted that Quebec's far north now has species of birds and insects that it did not have before and that can trigger dangerous changes in the balance of certain ecosystems. Even in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, where there are not that many ecosystems, we were forced to cut down dozens of trees because of the ash borer, an insect that did not previously exist back home. Climate change has caused the ash borer to migrate north and now it is attacking the trees.

I was talking to a winemaker in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé recently. He says climate change could affect wine production in Quebec because of a vine-destroying insect called phylloxera native to France and Europe. Phylloxera cannot survive our winters, but that could change as our winters warm and we get periods of milder weather. It may begin to attack our vines. Periods of milder weather have other significant impacts, too. For example, if there is a major thaw in January, the vines think spring has come and start to bud, then they freeze and die for the rest of the season.

I wanted to share those details with the House, but I will now turn to a situation happening a long way from home. This morning on Radio-Canada, I had a chance to listen to an interview with documentary filmmaker Matthieu Rytz, who directed a documentary called Anote's Ark. Anote is the leader of a small nation, a unique population living on Kiribati, an atoll in the middle of the Pacific.

Like many other Pacific atolls, their island is only about a metre above sea level, and sea level is already rising. If we do not meet our Paris Agreement targets and slow down global warming, the glaciers at the North and South poles will melt, causing the sea level to rise everywhere. For the people of Kiribati, it is almost too late already.

There are other countries where we hope to avert disasters. I am thinking in particular of Bangladesh, which is already below sea level, but which may have more resources to protect its coastline. The Netherlands and Holland already have an entire infrastructure for that, but the people of Kiribati do not. It is most unfortunate.

The documentary is called Anote's Ark because all these people plan on leaving. They are looking for somewhere else to live. They may move to Fiji, for example. They are already in negotiations to relocate to other countries. It is so tragic. Their entire way of life will disappear. It could also lead to complications and tension.

The climate migrants I mentioned earlier are a clear and typical example of the fact that this phenomenon will grow. If they are moved to another country, will a state be created within the host country, or will they simply be assimilated into the existing population? These are serious issues. What can we do to prevent this cultural diversity from disappearing? Biological diversity is important, but so is cultural diversity. We see the type of problems that this will cause.

Before I go into the specifics of the bill, I want to point out that the Liberal government promised to put an end to oil subsidies. After two and a half years in power, it has done absolutely nothing about this. On the contrary, I believe it has just handed out the largest oil subsidy in Canada's history by writing a $4.5-billion cheque to a U.S. company to purchase a 65-year-old pipeline that is leaking, by the way.

However, Canada pledged to participate in an accountability process adopted by the G7 and G20 to track each country's progress in reducing and gradually phasing out oil subsidies. We have received an invitation. We have already been invited to pair up with Argentina to examine each other's actions and decisions to see if we are serious and making progress. What is absolutely incomprehensible is quite simply that the Liberal government did not even respond to Argentina's invitation. Argentina is still waiting for Canada to say that it wants to partner up. As they say in Argentina, it takes two to tango, but Canada is refusing to get on the dance floor.

More specifically, we have a government that, once again, is saying one thing but doing the opposite. The oil subsidies are a blatant example. It is sad. I would like to quote a report from the environment commissioner that clearly states that this government is not going in the right direction and that it will likely fall well short of meeting the weak targets it has set, where it even set any, that is. That is another problem. It is unfortunate that, despite the Liberals' campaign promises, they set exactly the same greenhouse gas reduction targets as the previous government and kept the very same game plan, and yet it seems Canada will not even meet those targets.

I would like to quote the environment commissioner's report directly. It reads:

On the basis of current federal [and] provincial...policies and actions, Canada is not expected to meet its 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting Canada’s 2030 target will require substantial effort and actions beyond those currently planned or in place.

It seems pretty clear to me that we are going to miss the boat. We are going to miss the boat on what is probably the greatest challenge of this Parliament, this government, at a time when it should be leading the way and making tough decisions. It is not only the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who is saying so. The United Nations and the OECD share the same concerns and have said that Canada will not reach its targets for 2020 or 2030. There is nothing to be proud of or to brag about here. Giving great speeches in Germany, in New York, and at the UN is all well and good, but if the government is not willing to walk the talk, there is no point. It is nothing but hot air, nothing but words, as Dalida would have said.

As for the Federal Sustainable Development Act specifically and the fact that Canada has officially committed to achieving the United Nations' 17 sustainable development goals, once again, a report released in April by the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development sounded the alarm that we are not on track to achieve them. One of the federal government's major commitments to the UN is likely to remain mere empty rhetoric if Ottawa does not take meaningful action to honour those commitments.

At a news conference in April, Julie Gelfand said that it is always worrisome when a government says that it will do something and does not do it. In one of her three annual reports, she noted that Canada is not on track to meet the 17 sustainable development goals it has promised to implement on two separate occasions since 2015. The Prime Minister himself reiterated this promise when he appeared before the UN General Assembly in September 2017.

However, five departments responsible for implementing these goals by 2030 still have no targets and no system for monitoring progress. This is absolutely ridiculous. Ms. Gelfand also noted that there is no framework for coordinating these efforts at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Status of Women Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is unreal.

We are not on track to meet the goals and will not fulfill our international commitments, and the departments are so inept that they cannot establish targets or tracking systems themselves. Furthermore, one of these departments is the Department of the Environment. What a terrible message. What a joke. This is why the government's credibility on the environment leaves a lot to be desired, in spite of all their fine words.

Bill C-57 makes a few small changes, but it is still not enough. We are missing the boat. I will come back to this if I have any time left, but this bill is basically a copy of Bill C-474, which was introduced by Liberal Party member John Godfrey and passed in 2008. The overall framework of the bill before us is extremely weak. What I am about to say may seem a bit technical, but rather than give the government an incentive to achieve a series of sustainable development targets based on certain principles, Bill C-57 merely sets out a legal framework for developing a strategy.

That means that, once again, a framework will be created, consultations will be held, and everyone will talk about big ideas for this strategy. In the meantime, however, the concept of setting targets and figuring out how to meet them has fallen by the wayside even though those steps are key if we want to take this seriously and make things happen. Instead, they are building castles in the air, ignoring the targets, and pretending what they are doing will be good enough. We think this is a missed opportunity that could have been used to achieve so much more.

Initially, the bill introduced and passed in 2008 proposed establishing an independent commissioner position to act as an environmental auditor general, which we currently do not have. There is no one who is entirely independent to oversee, as an auditor general does, what the government is doing on the environment. Regrettably, instead of creating that position, the bill aims simply to create a sustainable development office at Environment and Climate Change Canada, but without any real plan. Thus, the person responsible for monitoring progress on achieving the objectives will be part of the same organization that should already be tracking it anyway. I would not put a fox in charge of the henhouse. This is laughable.

Basically, we see a few steps in the right direction, but we think it is unfortunate that the Liberals did not act on all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, despite what the minister said earlier today.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-57.

I want to begin by addressing some comments made recently by a Liberal colleague about climate change. Statements that the previous government did not consider climate change a serious problem are absolutely false. The fact is that the targets we set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are the targets that the Liberals are using. The position of the previous government was that every country has to be part of the solution. That is what science tells us. If it is just Canada and a few select countries that are doing their fair share, we cannot address the issue of growing greenhouse gas emissions. The targets that the previous government set are the targets that are being used by the Liberal government.

In speaking to Bill C-57, my concern is not about the bill and the text of the bill. It is whether the government will act on the bill, and whether change is necessary.

Bill C-57 came about exactly 10 years ago. I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment. The minister was John Baird. The Liberal member who was retiring and leaving this place was John Godfrey. As the parliamentary secretary in that structure, I was tasked with meeting with John. We talked. There was work with the David Suzuki Foundation and others. What was proposed was considered, and there was give-and-take. We ended up with a bill, Bill C-474, and the government, under the minister of the environment, John Baird, supported that. We ended up with a good piece of legislation that everyone could support, and we moved it forward as a Parliament in 2008.

That gives us a glimpse into what happened under a previous Conservative government. In the committee structures, how did things work back then? There was work between the government in power and the opposition members. Unfortunately, we do not see that in the current government. It is sad. That is one of the reasons why there is a lack of trust. The government says that it will work with the opposition, but that is not what happens.

In the committee, members are not even permitted to ask questions. It was last week that the ministers came to answer questions about how they were going to spend the $7 billion of discretionary funds in the main estimates. The ministers came and made their speeches, and then down came the gavel to end the meeting so that the opposition members could not ask any questions. It was so undemocratic and so shocking.

That is how the Liberal government runs the House. In one day, it brought closure three times, and in the committees it does not permit the opposition members to do their work, representing Canadians and keeping the government accountable. The government refuses to let that happen in committees. It is very sad.

That did not happen in 2008, when we worked with a Liberal member, John Godfrey, and permitted him to introduce his bill. There was give-and-take, and we came up with what we could both agree on. The David Suzuki Foundation was part of that consultation.

We ended up with a good bill, the Sustainable Development Act. There are three parts to it. What we said, and what the current government is saying, is that we can have a healthy environment and we can have a healthy economy. We can do it, but there has to be social buy-in. Canadians have to buy in. The key to that is having all three. There has to be trust. Unfortunately, what is missing in Bill C-57 is trust.

There is a third body. There is the Commissioner of the Environment, who will do an assessment of what is happening. Is the government doing what it needs to? The Commissioner of the Environment gives us a report card. How is Parliament doing? How is the government doing?

As was noted previously, the spring 2018 audit by the commissioner stated:

...we found that the federal government is not ready to implement its commitments on sustainable development....

First, the federal government does not regularly balance the three pillars of sustainable development.

That is one of the reasons why it is failing. It then states:

Second, there is a lack of leadership for many sustainable development activities.

With respect to the lack of leadership, where is that source? What is the commissioner talking about? It is the government. It is the Prime Minister. It is the minister. There is no leadership. If the problem with the lack of sustainable development is that lens, why is it not happening? The commissioner is saying it is because of a lack of leadership. The government is not using the tools it has. That is the third reason he cites as follows:

the federal government has not implemented the tools it already has to assess the impacts of policy decisions on sustainable development.

The minister and the Prime Minister need to do their job. The government needs to work with members of the opposition and all parties. There needs to be respect and trust. Then what we already have in place would be working.

Under Liberal governments, we have seen a legacy of disrespect for Parliament and not getting it done. I am looking at reports by the Commissioner of the Environment done year after year. I do not have the time to go through all of them.

The 2002 report stated, “The Liberal government's sustainable development deficiency continues to grow.”

The 2003 report noted, “There is a gap between what the Liberal government said it would do and what it is actually doing. Good intentions and great announcements are not enough.”

The 2004 report asked, “Why is progress so slow after all the mandates and commitments were there? I am left to conclude that the reason is that there is a lack of leadership, a lack of priority and a lack of will.” It sounds like what was announced just weeks ago.

The 2005 report stated, “When it comes to protecting the environment bold announcements are made and then forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground.”

We have a problem. Because of lack of leadership, we are missing a sustainable development lens that includes a healthy environment; a strong, growing economy; and social buy-in. That is what the Commissioner of the Environment is saying. Can members imagine for a moment what the economy, the environment, and the social buy-in for a healthy economy and environment would look like if we had a Conservative government or a minister of the environment like the member for Abbotsford? I can only imagine how good it would be.

We became government in 2006. In 2011, we had efficiencies, appliances, and vehicles in place that helped reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is it was in 2008, 2009, and 2010 that emissions were going down because of efficiencies resulting from policies brought in by the previous Conservative government. I can only imagine that emissions would continue to go down when we get a change of government, when we get a Conservative government that respects Canadians, that works with Canadians, and uses common sense to create a growing environment and a growing economy. It is achievable and it will happen from 2019 onwards. I am excited because I know that with a Conservative government, we are going to get it done.

Report Stage

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address my hon. colleagues here in the House today. I would like to speak about the principles of sustainable development and Bill C-57 and how those will help advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.

Let me start with a bit of history. In 1993, the General Assembly of the United Nations established the World Commission on Environment and Development, which was chaired by then Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. In 1987, the commission published Our Common Future, known as the Brundtland report. The report put sustainable development on the global agenda. It also coined and defined its meaning, as follows:

Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That is often referred to as the standard definition of “sustainable development”, and indeed, that is how sustainable development is defined in our current Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The Brundtland report paved the way for an unprecedented 1992 United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, better known as the Earth Summit. I want to make a special point of noting that it was the late Maurice Strong, a distinguished Canadian, who led the organization of that event.

The Earth Summit brought together more countries and heads of state than any previous event. It established enduring and lasting mechanisms for international co-operation, following through on Gro Harlem Brundtland's vision of a sustainable future.

Among these important agreements were the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and the development of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Canada was there. We supported the 1992 Rio declaration, and we have championed sustainable development since that time.

In 1995, following Rio, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to create a commissioner for sustainable development. Since 1997, government departments have been required to produce sustainable development strategies, in compliance with the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act.

In 2008, under the leadership of the Hon. John Godfrey, his private member's bill, Bill C-474, passed and became law as the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The act provides a legal framework for developing and implementing a federal sustainable development strategy every three years. It also requires 26 departments and agencies to prepare their own sustainable development strategies that comply with and contribute to the federal strategy.

Let us move forward to 2015, which was a watershed year for sustainable development globally. In September, Canada was among 193 countries to adopt the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The 2030 agenda set out a global framework of action for people, the planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership, with the ultimate goal of eradicating poverty and ensuring that no one is left behind. The 17 sustainable development goals and their 169 associated targets built on the previous millennium development goals. They were universally applicable and fully integrated social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Just a few months later, in December of 2015, Canada was among the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which adopted the historic Paris agreement.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act is part of a legacy that began with the Brundtland report and the Earth Summit and that is still relevant today as we advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy. It provides the framework to develop and implement the federal sustainable development strategy, a guide to the Government of Canada's environmental sustainability priorities.

The most recent strategy for the period from 2016 to 2019 was tabled in the House on October 6, 2016. It sets out 13 long-term aspirational goals. In response to a recommendation of the standing committee, the strategy's goals are Canada's reflection of the United Nations' sustainable development goals, with a focus on the environmental dimensions.

We are continuing to move forward to improve what we are already doing. Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, seeks to strengthen our commitment to sustainable development, further building on the Brundtland Report and Rio as well as on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement.

As in the past, principles have been the foundation of all our sustainable development commitments, and today I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues about the principles we are proposing in Bill C-57, principles our government believes will strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I also want to acknowledge the important work of our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, who, in their June 2016 report on the Federal Sustainable Development Act, highlighted the importance of modernizing our sustainable development principles.

Bill C-57 proposes to include the principles of intergenerational equity, polluter pays, internalization of costs, openness and transparency, involving indigenous people, collaboration, and results and delivery.

The principle of intergenerational equity is the essence of sustainable development. It is the recognition that the decisions we make are not just about today and about us but about the future and those who will be here after us.

The principles of polluter pays and the internalization of costs reflect our understanding that we need to move beyond conventional ways of thinking. To be sustainable, economic growth must take into account the damages imposed on the environment. Polluter pays means that those who generate pollution must bear the cost. Internalization of costs means that goods and services should reflect all costs they generate for society, from their design to consumption to final disposal.

The principles of openness and transparency are intertwined with the purpose of the Federal Sustainable Development Act to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament.

From the very first day we took office, our government has been committed to a renewed relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. We are working to correct the injustices that have persisted and have contributed to an unacceptable socio-economic gap. That is why we are involving indigenous people. We want to underscore that this commitment is supported by important provisions in the proposed act to increase the number of indigenous representatives on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council to better reflect the breadth of indigenous groups represented and the challenges they face here in Canada.

The principle of collaboration emphasizes the role parties must play to achieve sustainable development. We need to work together.

Last, the principle of results and delivery is about making sure that we get there. We need to ensure that we have the right objectives and strategies to meet all the goals, but we also need good indicators to measure progress and make sure that we report on the progress in a way people can understand and be proud of.

The principles set out in Bill C-57 reaffirm that we are up to the challenge before us. We are ready to seize the opportunities before us and to be bold. Sustainable development means growing a diversified, low-carbon economy while reducing emissions and generating good-quality jobs for Canadians.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have an opportunity to address my hon. colleagues in support of this new legislation.

I would like to speak to the principles of sustainable development in Bill C-57 and how these would help to advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.

Guelph has a long history of enacting sustainable development policies. Personally, I worked for five years on the mayor's task force for sustainability and have since focused my goals in the House around the triple bottom-line approach in balancing economic, environmental, and social development. Guelph is a living monument to our government's mantra that we cannot separate success in the environment and success in the economy. They are, in fact, one and the same. Guelph is known for its economic success, including low unemployment and a rapid growth in our economy. In fact, Guelph is one of the fastest-growing economies in Canada, but it is also one of the most environmentally conscious. We have the highest rates of waste diversion from landfills, at 68%. We have the lowest water consumption per capita, with a goal of reaching Norway's level. As we grow our population by 50%, we are looking to reduce our electrical consumption by the same amount so that we do not require more power for the 50% more people coming in.

Another key objective of Bill C-57 is poverty reduction. Guelph is actively working to eliminate poverty, with a focus on homelessness and mental health. Currently, the Guelph and Wellington task force for poverty elimination is a shining example of our community's dedication to eliminate poverty in our community. Its three-year strategic plan, from 2014 to 2017, addresses issues like food and income security, housing, and dental health. These social objectives are essential to sustainable development, as was acknowledged by the UN in the early 1980s. It all connects.

Let me continue with some global history. In 1983, the United Nations General Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development. It was chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland, and in 1987 the Brundtland commission published its report, “Our Common Future”, known as the Brundtland report. That report put sustainable development squarely on the global agenda. In its own words, “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” That is often referred to as the standard definition of sustainable development. Indeed, that is how sustainable development is defined in our current Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The Brundtland report paved the way for an unprecedented 1992 United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, better known as The Earth Summit. I want to make a special point of noting that it was a very great, distinguished Canada who helped to organize that event, the late Maurice Strong. The Earth Summit brought together more countries and heads of state than any previous event. It also established enduring and lasting mechanisms for international co-operation, following through on Gro Harlem Brundtland's vision of a sustainable future. Among these important agreements were the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biodiversity, and the development of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Canada was there. We supported the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

We have championed sustainable development since then. Following the Rio summit, in 1995, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to create a commissioner for sustainable development. Since 1997, government departments have been required to produce sustainable development strategies in compliance with the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act. In 2008, under the leadership of the Hon. John Godfrey, his private member's bill, Bill C-474, passed and became law as the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The act provides the legal framework for developing and implementing a federal sustainable development strategy every three years. It also requires 26 departments and agencies to prepare their own sustainable development strategies that comply and contribute to the overall federal strategy.

The year 2015 was a watershed year. In September, Canada was among 193 countries to adopt the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The 2030 agenda sets out a global framework of action over the next decade and a half for people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership; to eradicate poverty; and to leave no one behind. The 17 sustainable development goals and 169 associated targets build on the previous millennium development goals. They are universally applicable and fully integrate the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

In December 2015, Canada was among the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which adopted the historic Paris Agreement.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act is part of the legacy that began with the Brundtland report and earth summit and is still relevant today as we advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy. It provides the framework to develop and implement the federal sustainable development strategy, the complete guide to the Government of Canada's environmental sustainability priorities.

The most recent strategy, for the period 2016-19, was tabled in the House on October 6, 2016. It sets out 13 long-term, aspirational goals. In response to a recommendation of the standing committee, the strategy's goals are a Canadian reflection of the United Nations' sustainable development goals, with a focus on their environmental dimensions.

Today I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues about the principles we are proposing in Bill C-57, principles this government believes will strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I also want to acknowledge the important work of our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, who, in their June 2016 report, highlighted the importance of modernizing our sustainable development principles.

Bill C-57 proposes to include the following principles: intergenerational equity, polluter pays, internalization of costs, openness and transparency, involving indigenous peoples' collaboration, and results and delivery.

The principle of intergenerational equity is the essence of sustainable development. It is the recognition that the decisions we make are not just about today and about us but also about the future and those who will be here after us. The Brundtland report set out the following principle on intergenerational equity: “States shall conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.”

It was also recommended in the standing committee's June 2016 report that the principle of polluter pays be adopted, that we look at a new way of thinking, and that sustainable economic growth take into account the damages imposed on the environment.

Polluter pays means that those who generate pollution should bear the cost of having created pollution. Internalization of costs means that goods and services should reflect all the costs they generate for society, from their design to their consumption to their final disposal. The principles of openness and transparency are also intertwined with the purpose of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, ensuring that decision-making related to sustainable development is more transparent and is subject to accountability to Parliament.

That is why Bill C-57 proposes a principle on involving all peoples and being transparent to all peoples. I also note that the government's commitment is supported by provisions in the act to ensure and expand aboriginal representation on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council.

Finally, the principles we set out in Bill C-57 reaffirm that we are up to the challenge. Canada, like Guelph, is ready to seize the opportunities before us and to be bold. Sustainable development means growing a diversified, low-carbon economy while reducing emissions, generating good jobs for Canadians, and having a society we can all be proud of.

Private Members' Business

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for your patience in that I hope to get through two issues dealing with points of order raised earlier.

First, I am rising on a point of order respecting four bills on the order of precedence that require a royal recommendation. These bills include Bill C-315, respecting the conservation of national historic sites account; Bill C-343 , an act to establish the office of the federal ombudsman for victims of criminal acts; Bill S-205, to appoint an inspector general of the Canada Border Service Agency; and Bill S-229, an act respecting underground infrastructure safety.

Without commenting on the merits of these bills, I submit that these bills contain provisions that infringe upon the financial prerogative of the crown.

Members will note that section 53 of the Constitution states that:

Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue...shall originate in the House of Commons.

Section 54 of the Constitution requires that bills that appropriate any part of the public revenue must be recommended to the House by the Governor General.

Standing Order 79(1) states that:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

I submit that all four bills stand in contravention to the Constitution and, more important for you, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 79(1).

Additionally, I would cite page 769 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states, “An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order...”.

Bourninot, fourth edition, page 407, refers to the financial initiative of the crown as a constitutional obligation and states that “No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating financial measures...”.

Erskine May, 21st edition, page 691, defines the financial initiative of the crown as the “long established and strictly observed rule of procedures, which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance, that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Crown...”.

The procedural authorities are clear. Bills that seek to appropriate monies for a new and distinct purpose must originate in the House and must be recommended to the House by the Governor General through a minister of the crown.

I therefore submit that the two aforementioned Senate public bills should be ruled out of order and the two private member's business bills should not be put to a vote at third reading absent a royal recommendation.

Both Senate public bills in question, as well as Bill C-343, contain a provision that prohibits the coming into force of the bill unless the appropriation of monies for the purposes of the act has been recommended by the Governor General and such monies have been appropriated by Parliament.

By including such a provision, it is an explicit acknowledgement that the bills require a royal recommendation.

Let me quickly review the provisions in each of these bills that would result in a new and distinct spending request.

Bill S-205 provides for the appointment of an inspector general of the Canada Border Services Agency.

Subclause 15.12(3) provides for the salary and expenses for the inspector general. Subclauses 15.12(4) and (5) provide for the pension benefits and other benefits under the Government Employees Compensation Act and regulations. These proposals are not authorized by any statute or appropriation.

Clause 17 of Bill S-229, an act respecting underground infrastructure safety, authorizes the minister to enter into agreements, including funding agreements, that the minister considers necessary for carrying out the purposes of the act. Subclause 17(2) provides greater detail around the operation of such funding agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments. These specific purposes are not authorized by any statute or appropriation.

Bill C-343, An Act to establish the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts and to amend certain Acts, would provide for an appointment of a federal ombudsman for victims of criminal acts. The bill would also provide for remuneration, the payment of expenses related to duties and functions, and the hiring and remuneration of staff to assist the ombudsman in the discharge of his or her duties. These purposes are not authorized by any statute or appropriation.

Precedents clearly state that the establishment of a new body requires a royal recommendation. For example, the Speaker ruled on July 11, 1988, on the report stage amendments for Bill C-93, an act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, that two report stage motions were inadmissible because they would have established a new government department, which in turn would have resulted in significant new spending.

Precedents also show that a royal recommendation is required for the establishment of a new office. The Speaker ruled on February 11, 2008, on Bill C-474, respecting the Federal Sustainable Development Act, that:

Clause 7 of the bill provides for the governor in council to appoint 25 representatives to the advisory council. Section 23 of the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint includes the power to pay. As the provision in Bill C-474 is such that the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these representatives, this involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

With respect to the use of a provision in the bill to elude the requirement for a royal recommendation, the Speaker has ruled that this approach is unacceptable. On November 9, 1978, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-204, which included a clause stating:

Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring an appropriation of any part of the public revenue.

The Speaker ruled that:

...the House should be cautioned that the Chair could not interpret the incorporation of such a clause in a private member's public bill as an acceptable way of eluding the requirement for a royal recommendation where such a recommendation is required.

I submit that the approach of eluding the requirement for a royal recommendation by tying it to a coming-into-force clause is a clear attempt to accomplish something indirectly that cannot be accomplished directly.

With respect to Bill C-315, respecting the conservation of national historic sites account, I submit that the bill's proposal to create a conservation of national historic sites account requires a royal recommendation.

Proposed subsection 22.1(4) would authorize that payments may be made out of the account. The creation of an account within the consolidated revenue fund requires a royal recommendation. The royal recommendation for such a fund would cover the purposes of the fund and the authority to make credits to the account as well as the authority to make payments out of the account.

The member may be attempting to assert that the fund would be separate from the consolidated revenue fund, but precedents demonstrate that all separate accounts are only notionally separate and are in fact part of the consolidated revenue fund. For example, the employment insurance operating account was established in accounts of Canada by the act. All amounts received under the act are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and credited to the account. The benefits and the costs of administration of the act are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to the account.

On June 13, 2005, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence. He said:

I have carefully reviewed the submissions to determine whether Bill C-280 in clause 2 does anything more than rearrange the method of accounting for public funds.... On close examination, it seems to the Chair that clause 2 in Bill C-280 involves more than accounting methodology.

...Bill C-280 effects an appropriation by spending or authorizing the spending of public funds by transfer of the funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a separate EI Fund with the result that these monies are no longer available for other appropriations Parliament may make.

What Bill C-315 contemplates is the creation of a fund within the accounts of Canada for the purposes of spending to maintain national historic sites. The creation of such a fund and the authority to spend to preserve such historic sites would be a new and distinct purpose that is not specifically authorized in any statute or appropriation. Therefore, without a royal recommendation attached to the bill, it should not be put to a vote at third reading.

The procedural authorities and the precedents are clear that bills that seek to appropriate monies for a new and distinct purpose must originate in the House and must be recommended to the House by the Governor General through a minister of the crown.

[Julie Gelfand]

The original bill was Bill C-474. I have a copy, and I could just leave it with you if you wish. I haven't marked it up already. The committee could look at that, and compare it to the final act, so that they can see the differences in terms of content, and then Mr. Godfrey and Mr. McDougall could probably talk about some of the process issues.

[John Godfrey]

In short, it was more luck than good management or brilliant planning, but then luck is what you make of it. Because I had a private member's bill coming up, in 2007 I was approached by the David Suzuki Foundation and asked if I would sponsor a draft bill they had prepared to create, as it was at the time, a national sustainable development strategy for Canada. I agreed and this long, detailed, and ambitious bill became the template for what eventually emerged as Bill C-474.

My first collaboration was working very closely with the David Suzuki Foundation and its talented representative in Ottawa, Pierre Sadik, to make sure that the extensive amendments and compromises that inevitably emerged in committee were still acceptable to the original sponsors.

The second important collaboration was with the then minister of the environment, John Baird, and his office. This was not an easy time in Parliament, as Nathan Cullen will recall, or in the standing committees of the House of Commons. But by being transparent and co-operative, by appealing to the Conservatives own stated ambition for greater accountability, by avoiding partisanship and political stunts, and by building trust, we eventually arrived at a bill that the government accepted and embraced when it came into force.

The third collaboration was with the other opposition parties on the committee, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. We listened carefully to suggestions from them and, where possible, incorporated their ideas into the bill. For example, the Bloc objected very strongly to the word “national” in national sustainable development strategy—as you might have guessed—so we changed it to “federal” sustainable development strategy to remove any suggestion that we were dictating to provinces.

The fourth major collaboration was with the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development to make sure that in designing the bill, we were creating an appropriate and functional role for the commissioner. Here I would like to pay tribute to the interim commissioner of the day, the late Ron Thompson, a great civil servant of integrity and strength who played a pivotal role in advancing the bill.

Finally, I must emphasize the importance of close and respectful collaboration with the Senate, the crucial role of which in passing effective legislation is too often misunderstood and neglected by standing committees of the House.

Honourable members, I tell you all this in the hope that the same spirit of respect, consultation, and co-operation may guide your future work. Whether it is in committee of the whole or in the cause of advancing your own private member's bill one day, it is a far more productive way of getting good and useful things done in Parliament.

As for the act itself, it has produced a living document, the federal sustainable development strategy, the third iteration of which, for the period 2016-19, is now before you. When I read the 2015 progress report on the last version of the strategy and then the new proposed strategy, planning for a sustainable future 2016-19, I believe you have the opportunity to strengthen the strategy through your thoughtful consideration and comments, particularly in the area of climate change.

I currently serve as full-time special adviser for climate change to the Government of Ontario. My comments today do not represent the official views of Ontario; rather, they are my own observations based on my recent experience.

The big challenge for governments, national, provincial, and municipal, is that the three major elements of climate change policy, mitigation, adaptation, and economic opportunity, are each whole-of-government or boundary-spanning problems for which current government structures are ill-designed. Merely adding the words “climate change” to an existing line ministry, such as Environment, will not solve any of the three elements of climate change, each of which has its own set of relevant government departments and its own unique challenges.

Instead, I would invite the committee, and indeed the federal government itself, to use the opportunity offered by the review of this new, third version of the federal sustainable development strategy to reflect on how better to deal with the whole-of-government problem. For example, might it ultimately make more sense to house the sustainable development office, currently at Environment and Climate Change, in a central agency, such as the Privy Council Office, the Department of Finance, or the Treasury Board?

Indeed, the committee might wish to reflect on the two-dimensional nature of this challenge. Not only must there be greater horizontal action for climate change across ministries, agencies, and departments at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, but there also must be greater vertical co-operation and coordination among the three orders of governments themselves.

The challenge of responding to climate change is so great and so urgent that Canada must mobilize all of its governments for the fight, as it did during the Second World War. Using the review of the new federal sustainable development strategy for the committee to focus on this whole-of-government or, more aptly, whole-of-governments challenge would, in my view, be an appropriate and timely response to the crisis.

Thank you.

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has had a deplorable environmental record for quite some time. When compared to other OECD countries, Canada is ranked second last. It is very urgent that we adopt a set of measures to help us do better. That is primarily what Bill C-481 would do if it were passed.

The situation is urgent and although some would prefer to ignore the scientific evidence behind global warming, it is a factor that could adversely affect our economy, our health and the future of our children.

Since 1948, the average temperature in Canada has increased by 1.3°C and much more quickly than in other parts of the world. To get a sense of what that means for the economy, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy estimates that this will cost $5 billion by 2020 and between $41 and $43 billion by 2050.

Of course, a number of us will not be around in 2050 to see the impact for ourselves. That is precisely why sustainable development is important. I will say it again: sustainable. With all the scientific tools available, not only is it irresponsible to take no action to counter global warming, but it is also unfair because it deprives our future citizens of a world that we enjoyed.

That may be difficult for some to understand, but we have an urgent duty to attack a problem that will go down in history as one of the greatest challenges of our time. One day, our children and grandchildren will ask themselves, what did we do?

First, we must recognize that the House passed Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act unanimously in 2008. Thus, we can say that everyone agrees that something must be done. As for exactly what to do and how far to go, not everyone agrees on how to handle the challenge of climate change.

Bill C-474 did not stop the Conservative government from getting rid of dozens of climate research scientist positions, from getting rid of the Canadian census form, or from subsidizing a polluting industry at enormous cost to the taxpayers. As the saying goes, you have to walk the talk. When the House says it is going to do something, it would be good if the general public could actually see something happen.

Unfortunately, at this point, this is not the case. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, a position created by virtue of Bill C-474, states that Canada is not doing what it should to establish real sustainable development practices. It was to respond to this problem that my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi introduced C-481, which in fact does nothing more than give real power to Bill C-474. If Bill C-474 is the talk, Bill C-481 is the walk. It only remains to be seen whether this government will dare to put on its shoes.

There is nothing magical about Bill C-481. In fact, it is really only logical. It would make it possible for the justice minister to draw the attention of the House to any inconsistency between bills that have been passed and the Federal Sustainable Development Act. This way we would have a tool for measuring our commitment to sustainable development, so that we might take tangible steps toward making Canada greener, fairer and more prosperous.

In my view, the principal argument in favour of the bill currently under consideration is the fact that the justice minister already verifies all the bills. Making it possible for him to report any potential inconsistencies with the Federal Sustainable Development Act will not require any additional resources and will make it possible for the bill to be something more than just window dressing.

It must be said that sustainable development covers a great deal. It can be used for almost everything, without much regard for its real meaning. However, if we thought about this a little more, we would see that it is a vision of development that is likely to encourage green, job-creating industries, as well as increased citizen participation in public affairs.

The three pillars of this theory are as follows: a vision of economic justice, a balanced social perspective and, of course, the conservation of nature for future generations. By applying this reasoning to all our legislation, we could make a promise to our children that they too will be able to enjoy a world where there is room for everyone and where there are the resources they need to live.

In the current circumstances, I think it is urgent to improve the Federal Sustainable Development Act, because we believe that it does not have any real teeth. For instance, how is the government meeting its commitments when it gives money to the oil industry, which is already rich? How is this good for the environment? Has any consideration being given to the fact that development of the oil sands artificially inflated the value of the dollar and resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector? Have the communities that live near oil sands developments even been consulted?

Unfortunately, all too often the answer to these many questions is no. The omnibus bills introduced recently by the Conservative government have proven that the government does not listen to anyone and that it is not even living up to its own commitments.

Many measures included in these bills would fail miserably if they were put to the test of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. For instance, people can no longer oppose the installation of a pipeline for environmental reasons unless the pipeline goes directly through their property.

The government is ignoring the concept of the common good and trampling on our communities' ability to mobilize by allowing the democratic process of a vote only once every four years. Just because the government won a majority with 38% of the vote does not make this a democratic country; quite the contrary. Claiming so much power with so little support is appalling enough, but preventing communities from having their say when it really counts is completely unjustifiable from a democratic standpoint.

Since many of the Conservative government's decrees are bad for the economy, the environment and the survival of Canadian democracy, I strongly urge the House to give this country a regulatory tool, a safeguard, that will bring us closer to our goal of sustainable development.

Accordingly, I fully support Bill C-481, which will help Canada to better meet its own commitments and allow us to give our children a society in which they will want to live, thrive and participate actively.

Let us give ourselves the means to be responsible, and we will finally be able to say that we did what was needed to ensure the sustainability of our communities. At the risk of repeating myself, any attempt to limit enforcement powers regarding the environment makes anything that could be said on the matter sound superficial.

We have a serious responsibility to the future. I would like to be able to tell myself that we are doing everything we can to ensure that Canada moves in the direction of sustainable development, which will provide new opportunities that are worthy of a developed economy in the 21st century.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

moved that Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present Bill C-481. Years ago, I joined an increasing number of Canadians who have become aware of the urgent need for action on the environment. It is now absolutely crucial to develop sustainable development policies to address the many challenges of our time.

I also want to pay tribute to our environment critic, the member for Halifax, who works so hard to defend our world and the quality of life of her constituents. She is a role model who inspires me every day. As for me, I was elected in 2011 to make Canada greener, more prosperous and fairer for all.

Some people would say that Bill C-481 does not go far enough. However, I feel it is a step in the right direction. My colleagues on the other side and I should support it. Indeed, it is an amendment to an act that the Conservatives themselves passed unanimously in June 2008.

My bill seeks to ensure that any future acts and regulations introduced by a federal minister comply with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The Minister of Justice will then report any inconsistencies to the House of Commons, at the earliest possible opportunity. The Department of Justice already has an obligation to examine all bills and regulations before the House to verify compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All that Bill C-481 does is link this process with what has already been created by the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I would point out there was nothing in the throne speech on sustainable development. However, the idea that human activity can cause serious and lasting damage to our ecosystems is now a key part of policy.

My bill is a reminder that Canadians want sustainable development to be included in the decision-making process of their representatives in the House of Commons. Placing sustainable development at the heart of all federal public policy is the best way to make Canada greener, more prosperous and fairer for all.

What is sustainable development? It means creating policies that meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations. Sustainable development must also be guided by long-term thinking that takes into account the inseparable nature of the environmental, social and economic impacts of development activities. Unfortunately, we are leaving our children with the worst economic, social and ecological debt in the history of this country. We cannot afford to let this situation continue.

The planet's temperature is already rising. This is an undeniable reality that is hitting Canada hard. Since 1948, the average annual temperature in Canada has risen by 1.3^oC, a rate of warming that is higher than in most other parts of the world. Heavy precipitation and flooding have increased in most Canadian cities. Researchers with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy have noted an increased number of heat waves in every major Canadian city as well as more droughts, particularly in the west. There have also been more forest fires. Moreover, the serious lack of water is affecting land productivity, and that will only get worse.

Insurance plans are not adapted to these situations. In Quebec alone, the compensation paid by insurance companies as a result of storms and flooding has increased by 25% since 2001.

Lastly, scientists have documented deteriorating biodiversity conditions in all of the main types of ecosystems in Canada. Biodiversity is a cornerstone of Canadian competitiveness. It is key to continued growth in ecotourism and recreation. Falling behind on the protection of land and wildlife could lead to the disruption of valuable resource sectors like forestry and fisheries.

Our trading partners see Canada as a steward of globally significant resources. Canada’s success as a trading nation depends on continued leadership in meeting international expectations for environmental protection, expectations that are increasingly enshrined in international trade agreements.

Negligence is getting expensive. The effects are being felt across the country, and it will only get worse if we do not act now. For many years, a number of provinces have said repeatedly how important it is that Canada take a leadership role in establishing sustainable development policies. Sustainable development means creating policies that meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations. This principle must be extended to all decisions made by the federal government, especially those made in the House.

Informing people and building awareness alone will not make Canada greener. We need leadership. The government and MPs must foster change that stimulates progress and prosperity in our communities.

My bill will give Canada a mechanism that encourages MPs to act in accordance with sustainable development principles. Bill C-481 is one more step in the right direction toward placing these principles at the centre of our decision-making process. By encouraging MPs to develop bills that are in line with the federal sustainable development strategy, Bill C-481 will help them make good decisions and build a greener, more prosperous and more just Canada.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act was the outcome of a private member's bill, Bill C-474, which was passed unanimously in June 2008. In passing the bill, the Government of Canada recognized the importance of making decisions that take environmental, economic and social factors into account. The bill set up a legal framework for the development and implementation of a federal sustainable development strategy.

The purpose of the strategy is to make the decision-making process more transparent in terms of the environment. It is updated every three years with a progress report and public consultations. Within a year of the strategy coming into effect, the main federal departments have to prepare their own sustainable development strategies. These must comply with the guidelines in the federal sustainable development strategy, which has four priority themes.

The first is about addressing climate change now that weather events have become more frequent and severe. We must also improve air quality to combat the growing number of respiratory illnesses.

The second is about maintaining water quality and availability, because even though our bank account is full and oil resources are everywhere, water quality is still the most critical factor for life.

The third is about protecting nature, plants and animals. The fourth is about shrinking the environmental footprint, beginning with government. The goal is to reduce polluting emissions, recycle, and set a good example for the private sector and individuals.

As it stands now, this legislation does not do much, since the current government lacks any political will.

This fall, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report criticized the government for missing most of its targets. Most of the targets lack clarity and measurability, which makes it difficult to assess progress over the short and long term.

Well thought-out strategies and effective action to implement them are fundamental to both the credibility and the impact of the strategies. Although the Federal Sustainable Development Act is weak and does not have teeth, I think it provides an excellent tool for us to coordinate our massive bureaucracy in order to implement sustainable development policies.

Bill C-481 will help strengthen this act by ensuring that the House of Commons knows whether a bill is in line with the federal sustainable development strategy. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development noted that the efforts to integrate the sustainable development strategy are incomplete. Bill C-481 would fix that.

We want to show Canadians that we take sustainable development into account in our decisions. If Bill C-481 passes, bills that are inconsistent with sustainable development will pay a political price. I hope that members of the House of Commons will make more of an effort to include sustainable development in their bills.

We must not be leaving environmental, economic and social debts for future generations. We must be concerned with the quality of life of our constituents; focus on prevention instead of repression; provide value-added for small businesses by giving them green infrastructure; promote buying local, which stimulates the regional economy and reduces our greenhouse gas emissions; and there are many more examples. Together, we will build a fairer, greener and more prosperous Canada.

In conclusion, I would like to share a quote from Frédéric Back's film The Man Who Planted Trees. This film served as an inspiration to me in developing this bill. Here is an excerpt:

...It is a desert no more. In these [formerly] arid regions...magnificent forests have slowed the winds, retained water and restored life. All this is the result of the quiet perseverance of a single man.

On that note, I urge all members to vote in favour of my bill.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill S-210, which we will naturally support, along with all the other parties in this House. This essentially administrative bill was presented in the Senate on April 30, 2010, and it would amend two acts: the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act. It would ensure that when the environment commissioner provides a report on the progress of sustainable development, this report is tabled in both the House of Commons and the Senate. That is the first amendment.

The second amendment would give the environment commissioner more latitude to decide when it is necessary to table reports on sustainable development. The Federal Sustainable Development Act, which is in its infant stages, since it was just recently passed, was the result of a bill introduced by one of our former colleagues, John Godfrey. He thought it was very important for Canada, and more specifically the federal government, to have a sustainable development strategy. I will come back to this shortly.

Mr. Godfrey worked with all of the parties to ensure that Bill C-474 would be passed. The Bloc Québécois did not like the bill in its original form because it proposed only a national sustainable development strategy. In addition, this bill interfered significantly in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction, such as agriculture and recycling. It was a national, coast-to-coast strategy that would not have produced results at the end of the day.

Following talks, the parties have decided that it is important for Canada to have a federal sustainable development strategy that falls within its own areas of jurisdiction. Thus, Canada will be able to meet the Rio targets and truly put in place a sustainable development plan using resources that already exist in its various departments. This strategy would also aim to increase greening of public services and provide Canada with the means to reach its international environmental goals.

That is how Bill S-210 was introduced. It will ensure that the commissioner has more flexibility in reaching the set targets. We need greater accountability and the environment commissioner must be able to report more frequently. Over the past weeks and months, we have come to realize that the environmental strategy presented by the federal government in order to comply with Bill C-474 contained targets that were vague, weak and insufficient.

Clearly, the government was just paying lip service to the ideas of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting ecosystems and oceanographic resources. We need a transparent sustainable development strategy with clear goals. However, that is what was missing from the strategy that has been developed.

The commissioner will be responsible for assessing whether the government has met those targets. The targets are inadequate, so, naturally, the commissioner will have a hard time in the coming years figuring out whether Canada is keeping the promises made to Parliament.

We need more transparency, more accountability and greater responsibility to ensure that the government is reaching its international targets. That is almost certainly what Parliament has been lacking these past 10 or 14 years. The government was unable to achieve its environmental targets at the international level because there was no oversight and no accountability with respect to Canada's commitments.

The best example of this is the fight against climate change. Since 1997, successive governments have introduced greenhouse gas reduction plans that were supposed to be in line with Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets. But we are a long way from reaching those targets.

In 1997, Canada promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Where do we stand now? Our greenhouse gas emissions have risen by more than 25%.

Why have we failed to reach our targets? One of the main reasons is that there have been no progress reports. There has been no way to determine whether the measures, plans, policies and programs implemented are taking us in the right direction. The government can set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but without the right plans, policies and programs in place, those targets will not be achieved. The environment commissioner needs more power to present more frequent reports. That is one of the goals of this bill.

We have already given the environment commissioner a greater role. A few years ago, the Liberal Party's Bill C-288 gave the environment commissioner more power with respect to accountability for reduction targets.

We support this bill. We believe that the environment commissioner must play a greater role in efforts to reach the targets set by Canada and the federal government by focusing on three basic objectives: transparency, accountability and responsibility.

Royal Recommendation--Bill C-568

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census).

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, it is my submission that the bill alters the conditions and qualifications for appropriations for Statistics Canada. The bill therefore requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79.

The Statistics Act sets out the duties and functions of Statistics Canada and the Chief Statistician of Canada. While this mandate is broad with respect to statistical matters, much of the activities are discretionary in nature and the act prescribes very few statutory obligations.

In fact, there are only two specific surveys or censuses required by the Statistics Act, a census of population as required by subsection 19(1), and a census of agriculture as required by section 20.

Further, the act provides few requirements for these censuses. The only requirement is set out in subsection 19(2) which requires the census of population to include the population counts for each electoral district.

What is more, all of the activities contemplated by the Statistics Act are under the direction of either the minister or the Governor in Council.

For example, under subsection 21(1), the Governor in Council is authorized to prescribe the questions to be asked in the census of population or agriculture. Section 22 of the act states that the Chief Statistician shall collect and compile statistics under the direction of the minister.

Section 8 of the act states that the minister may, by order, authorize a voluntary survey. Section 7 of the act states that:

The Minister may, by order, prescribe such rules, instructions, schedules and forms as the Minister deems requisite for conducting the work and business of Statistics Canada, the collecting, compiling and publishing of statistics and other information and the taking of any census authorized by this Act.

To sum up, the Statistics Act requires two censuses and says next to nothing about the nature of the questions to be asked in these censuses. The Governor in Council establishes the questions and the minister is responsible for the taking of the census.

I now turn to clause 1 of Bill C-568, which would amend the Statistics Act to provide two new requirements.

First, each population census must include a long form census questionnaire distributed to at least 20% of all households, or to whatever percentage the Chief Statistician has determined to be appropriate.

Second, the long form census questionnaire must conform substantially, in length and substantive scope, to the questions in the 1971 census.

This is a new obligation. While there has always been statutory authority to include a long form census, it has always been discretionary on the part of the Governor in Council. This is therefore a new obligation that alters the conditions and qualifications for the mandate of Statistics Canada.

This new obligation also requires expenditures. For example, Statistics Canada estimates that a long form census in 2011 would cost a minimum of $50 million. Under the current legal framework, the government has the discretion to decide whether or not to spend this $50 million. Under Bill C-568, the government would be obliged to appropriate the necessary funds to carry out its legal duties.

My point is not simply that Bill C-568 would require the expenditure of funds, but also that it does so in a way that alters the conditions and qualifications of Statistics Canada's existing mandate.

On page 834 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.

On February 11, 2008, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act, that:

...clause 13...would impose additional functions on the commissioner that are substantially different from those foreseen in the current mandate. In the Chair's view, clause 13 thus alters the conditions set out in the original bill to which a royal recommendation was attached.

Other precedents clearly establish that a change in purpose requiring new expenditures must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

On October 20, 2006, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-286, the witness protection bill, that:

...the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function. As a new function, such an activity is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. As the House knows, funds are approved by Parliament only for purposes covered by the accompanying royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

On November 8, 2006, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-279, the DNA identification bill, that:

...clause 2 amends the purpose clause of the DNA Identification Act to include the identifying of missing persons as one of the purposes for maintaining the data bank...the addition of this new purpose to the act would require significant new expenditures by the government.

I recognize that not all changes to an organization's mandate will always require a royal recommendation and that departments have the ability to reallocate funds in order to meet their legislative requirements.

As you recently noted, Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2010, in your ruling on Bill C-300:

Bill C-300 does require the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to examine bona fide complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines to be established under clause 5, but the bill is silent with respect to the manner in which such examinations are to be conducted. The respective ministers appear to have entire discretion in this regard.

In contrast, Bill C-568 removes all discretion from the minister and Governor in Council in deciding whether to include a long form census questionnaire with each census.

For this reason, Bill C-568 would add a new statutory obligation to the Statistics Act and would alter the mandate of Statistics Canada, thereby changing the conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation that accompanied that act.

I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the bill requires a royal recommendation.

Bill C-300—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Monday, September 20, 2010, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the need for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House as well as the hon. members for Scarborough—Guildwood and Mississauga South and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation for their comments.

In raising this issue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Bill C-300 established a new, quasi-judicial function regarding Canadian companies engaged in mining, oil or gas activities in developing countries to be exercised by the ministers of foreign affairs and international trade. He also contended that the framework required to implement the provisions of the bill was not foreseen by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and that considerable expense would be required to put it in place. In supporting this point, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation noted that during 2009 the World Bank had expended $3.3 million conducting what he described as “parallel investigations” to those he believed would be required by Bill C-300.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons noted that in other cases, the Speaker had found that bills mandating an expansion of the functions of an existing department or agency required a royal recommendation. He referred in that regard to the ruling concerning Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and rate setting) Debates, June 13, 2005, pages 6990-1, as well as to the ruling concerning Bill C-474, National Sustainable Development Act, Debates, February 11, 2008, but I will not cite the pages.

It is in that context that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons maintained that the terms and conditions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act were therefore being altered by Bill C-300 and that funds would need to be appropriated to carry out the new function imposed by the bill. He concluded that for these reasons, a royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-300.

In his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood asserted that the bill had been carefully drafted with a view to avoiding any requirement for a royal recommendation. He acknowledged that some reorganization of existing resources would be necessary, but that new resources would not be required.

The Chair takes very seriously the need to respect the requirements for a recommendation of the Crown to accompany any legislation requiring new expenditures. The Chair has therefore examined with care the details of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, as well as the precedents enumerated by the parliamentary secretary.

The case of Bill C-280, cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, involved the creation of a new employment insurance account outside the consolidated revenue fund. Bill C-474, to which he also referred, assigned new functions to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, including the assessing of provincial performance in the meeting of sustainable development goals, which was clearly a significant expansion of the existing mandate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was correct in saying that both Bill C-280 and Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation. In the first instance, the bill created an employment insurance account outside the consolidated revenue fund as well as several other proposals. These included lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant; setting benefits payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks of the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings; reducing the qualifying period before receiving benefits; and removing the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate. From a mere listing of the measures in the bill, one must clearly conclude that the bill had the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.

As for Bill C-474, it sought among other things, to modify the mandate of a new independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Specifically, it sought to develop “a national sustainability monitoring system to assess...the state of the Canadian environment, nationally and by province” as well as “...the national and provincial performance in meeting each sustainable development goal...” listed in the bill. There is no doubt that extending the commissioner’s mandate into the provincial arena was clearly a significant expansion of the existing mandate.

Thus, we are in agreement on the issues raised by these two bills, however, it seems to me that the situation presented by Bill C-300, the case now before the House, is not analogous to the circumstances just described.

Bill C-300 does require the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to examine bona fide complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines to be established under clause 5, but the bill is silent with respect to the manner in which such examinations are to be conducted. The respective ministers appear to have entire discretion in this regard. Furthermore, the Chair is of the view that the examination of such complaints is not a departure from or expansion of the current ministerial mandate under the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act to carry out such examinations. Bill C-300 may put forth more stringent requirements, but it does not expand the mandate per se. Hence, a parallel cannot be made to Bill C-474.

In addition, Bill C-300 does not actually call for the establishment of the quasi-judicial process referred to in testimony by departmental officials. Nor does it require that investigations be carried out in other jurisdictions. It may be that a reorganization of resources or even additional funds would be required, however, it appears these would be operational in nature. In short, there is little ground for comparison of Bill C-300 with Bill C-280 and Bill C-474.

Consequently, from a strictly procedural point of view, the Chair cannot find that Bill C-300 requires the expenditure of public funds for a new and distinct purpose. I therefore rule that there is no requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The House may continue to consider it in accordance with the rules governing private members' business.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, introduced by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I submit that the bill contains provisions which would require new spending for purposes not currently authorized in statute and therefore should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-300 would add new functions to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act by requiring the ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to establish a new, quasi-judicial function regarding Canadian companies engaged in mining, oil or gas activities in developing countries. Currently, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act does not authorize spending for that new function.

The government did not raise a point of order on the bill prior to second reading. However, during committee consideration of the bill, the issue of new spending was raised, and I now want to bring that to your attention. On December 1, 2009 officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade stated in committee:

The mechanism itself would require...the set-up of a whole new procedural framework that is not currently in existence within DFAIT and is not foreseen in the DFAIT Act.

Let me explain why this would require new spending. Clause 9 of the bill would amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act to compel the ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ensure that mining, oil and gas activities by Canadian corporations in developing countries are consistent with the guidelines in clause 5 of the bill.

Clause 4 of the bill sets out a formal complaints process to require the ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to receive complaints and conduct investigations on whether the guidelines have been contravened.

In a case where the ministers determine that activities contravene the guidelines, the ministers would be required to notify the president of the Export Development Corporation and the chair of the CPP Investment Board that a Canadian corporation's mining, oil or gas activities are inconsistent with the guidelines.

In such a case, the EDC would not be able to enter into, continue or renew a transaction with a Canadian corporation found to have contravened the guidelines and the CPP Investment Board would have to ensure that assets are not invested in any corporations that have been found to be in contravention of the guidelines.

Bill C-300 would alter the terms and conditions in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act by adding a new quasi-judicial function. The need for a royal recommendation for a new function is explained on page 834 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered.

On June 13, 2005 the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, stating:

Second, clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose--

On February 11, 2008, with respect to a new role or function for an existing organization or program, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act, stating:

Bill C-474 also proposes a new mandate for the commissioner.

However, clause 13 of Bill C-474 would modify the mandate of this new independent commissioner to require, namely, the development of “a national sustainability monitoring system...The clause 13 requirements would impose additional functions on the commissioner that are substantially different from those foreseen in the current mandate. In the Chair's view, clause 13 thus alters the conditions set out in the original bill to which a royal recommendation was attached.

I have explained how the new function proposed in Bill C-300 would alter the terms and conditions of the original royal recommendation for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act.

In keeping with the precedents I have mentioned, I therefore submit that Bill C-300 requires a royal recommendation.

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 6, 2010, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her comments.

In raising his point of order, the parliamentary secretary set out two grounds on which he considered Bill C-469 to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. First, he argued that the bill creates potential new legal liabilities for the government because it allows the Federal Court to order that the government pay for the restoration or rehabilitation required by environmental harm or for the protection or enhancement of the environment generally. He pointed out that not only procedural authorities but also a number of previous Speakers' rulings make it quite clear that the imposing of liabilities on the Crown requires a royal recommendation.

His second point dealt with the role which the bill assigns to the Auditor General. He noted that clause 26 of the bill would require the Auditor General to review every regulation or government bill in order to determine whether or not they were consistent with the provisions of Bill C-469. This role would, according to the parliamentary secretary, shift the role of the Auditor General from one of simply auditing to that of reviewing policy proposals that have not yet been approved. He regarded this as an inadmissible expansion of the Auditor General's mandate. In support of his view, he noted that, in a ruling given on February 11, 2008, Debates pages 2853-4, concerning Bill C-474, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, an expansion of the role of the environment commissioner to include a national sustainability monitoring system had been found to represent a change of mandate that required a royal recommendation.

In addressing the point of order, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona argued that the bill does not create a new liability for the government, but merely provides legal standing for actions to be brought should the government fail to assert its existing jurisdiction and legislated powers. She also drew the attention of the House to the fact that statutory authority to make payments exists under the provisions of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, should the government fail to carry out its duties.

With respect to the mandate of the Auditor General, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona pointed out that the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development falls under the authority of the Auditor General. She indicated that a broad mandate is given to the commissioner and that, in her view, none of the requirements of Bill C-469 went beyond the authority already provided to the commissioner by the Auditor General Act. She also noted that any increased expenditure would be operational in nature and would not involve a new activity or function.

The Chair has examined Bill C-469 carefully, as well as the authorities and precedents cited. There are essentially two points which the Chair is asked to address: first, does the bill authorize new expenditures of public funds by creating new or contingent liabilities for the Crown and, secondly, does the bill alter the role of the Auditor General by expanding her mandate beyond that currently provided for in the Auditor General Act.

In his remarks, the parliamentary secretary cited two cases in which an extension of Crown liability was ruled to require a royal recommendation. In one case, concerning the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it was proposed to raise the loan ceiling from $25,000 to $40,000. In the other case, a bill sought to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in a way which would have increased the government's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. In both of these cases, the government, as guarantor of the respective loans, would have been exposed to increased liability.

While the requirement for a royal recommendation in cases concerning loan limits and loan guarantees is well established, not all types of liability are subject to the same requirement. It is important in this context to distinguish between a liability for new payments under an existing program and a liability arising by reason of a court judgment rendered against the Crown. The rulings to which the parliamentary secretary has referred relate to a liability of the first kind. Erskine May, 23rd edition, at page 888 states that no recommendation is required from the Crown where: “—such a liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law.”

The parliamentary secretary has argued that new liabilities are created by Bill C-469. The Chair is not convinced of this. The bill provides a new means by which the Crown can be proceeded against where it has failed to meet its legal obligations. This is simply a new means of being called to account, not to a creation of a new responsibility for which additional expenditures of public funds will be required.

The Chair is also of the view that creating a new basis for legal actions against the Crown does not extend the Crown's liability as it currently exists under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. In the absence of an expansion of a liability for the new payments under an existing program, there does not appear to be a basis for the claim that the objects and purposes of that act are being extended to where an authorization is being given to make new expenditures of public funds.

The Chair would now like to turn to the question of whether or not Bill C-469 seeks to expand the mandate of the Auditor General.

As the member for Edmonton—Strathcona pointed out, the Office of the Auditor General includes the position of Commissioner of the Environment, who reports to Parliament through the Auditor General. The Commissioner is given a broad mandate with respect to the content of that office’s reports, as set out in paragraph 23(2) of the Act, which reads, in part:

The Commissioner shall, on behalf of the Auditor General, report annually to the House of Commons concerning anything that the Commissioner considers should be brought to the attention of the House in relation to environmental and other aspects of sustainable development—

The provisions of Bill C-469 concerning the Auditor General are limited to the examination of federal bills and regulations. Here again, it does not appear that the bill broadens the mandate of the commissioner, nor does it require the commissioner to undertake any work not already within his purview.

In conclusion, the Chair is unable to find any authorization for a new expenditure of public funds in Bill C-469, nor does the bill appear to assign any function to the Office of the Auditor General that goes beyond the existing mandate of that office. I therefore rule that Bill C-469 does not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and so does not require a royal recommendation.

I once again would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her comments.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

Bill C-469--Royal Recommendation Requirement

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the arguments made May 6, 2010 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding my private member's bill, Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the bill requires a royal recommendation because it would require new spending on the following basis: one, that part 2 authorizes environmental protection actions against the government by enabling Canadians to seek recourse in the Federal Court to protect the environment in relation to any action or inaction by the government which has resulted in significant harm; and two, that part 4 authorizes the Auditor General to review new regulations and bills to ensure consistency with Bill C-469 and to report any inconsistencies to the House of Commons.

I wish first to respond to the argument put forth that part 2, clause 19 of the bill, “would create potential legal liabilities for the government by adding the power to the Federal Court to order the government to pay for the restoration or rehabilitation of the part of the environment, and the power to order the government to pay for the enhancement or protection of the environment generally” and the argument that “clause 19 would result in a potential increase in the government's legal liability since payments resulting from decisions of the Federal Court would be made from the consolidated revenue fund”.

First, Bill C-469 merely establishes standing to bring an environmental protection action against the government. The enactment of this provision would create no immediate or automatic liability on the federal government. In point of fact the overall intent of the law is to encourage action by the federal government to assert its existing jurisdiction and legislated powers to protect the environment in the interests of current and future generations of Canadians.

The bill's purpose is to ensure greater transparency and participation in environmental decision making. The intent is to make the government accountable for the actions it takes or fails to take to protect the environment in the interests of Canadians.

If those broad rights and powers are asserted, then no action would likely be precipitated. Further, if the federal government's powers to protect the environment are exercised with due diligence, then a successful court action against the crown is unlikely. As a consequence, no new liability would arise.

In making his case, the parliamentary secretary referred to, for example, the Senate Speaker's ruling on May 5, 2009, at pages 739 to 740 of the Senate Debates, that Bill S-219, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, required a royal recommendation because it would increase the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act by expanding the range of conditions under which government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under that act.

However, the Senate Speaker in his ruling then went on to quote from the 23rd edition of Erskine May to distinguish those cases that would and would not require a royal recommendation:

While page 888 does state that the Royal Recommendation may not be required if the “liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law,” this does not save Bill S-219, since the changes proposed to the student loans regime are not merely incidental to the bill, but its primary purpose.

Based on this analysis, it is submitted, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has asserted, Bill C-469, which merely provides standing to a defined class of potential litigants to consider seeking a court order would not require royal recommendation. No immediate spending or liability arises from part 2. Any potential liability would arise only as an incidental consequence of an action actually being filed proving failure by the government to fulfill its duties as trustee of the environment, to enforce an environmental law or for violating the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

Further, the litigant must provide proof of actual or potential significant harm to even file the action. The imposition of new spending by the government is not at all the primary purpose of the bill. No immediate liability arises with the enactment of the bill and most certainly not as a result of part 2.

It may also be noted that Erskine May, 23rd edition at page 888 clearly provides that “Liability on the Crown or local authorities to pay costs, compensation or damages does not require a money resolution if such a liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law”.

It is further specified that in the case of widening the jurisdiction of a court, a money resolution is not required even though the proposal may have the incidental consequence of increasing the costs of administration of justice.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the Speaker's ruling on June 12, 1973, that Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act required a royal recommendation because it proposed substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.

However, this ruling was subsequently considered by the Speaker on February 12, 1998, on page 3766 in considering Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, who held that there was already statutory authority under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to make the payments that Bill S-4 outlined.

It may be noted that many federal environmental laws, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, already provide that the Crown is bound. According to Erskine May, 21st Edition at page 717, “No further authorization is required for an expenditure covered by an existing statutory authority, including liability to pay damages covered by existing law”.

By way of example, crown agencies such as the Department of Public Works and the Department of Defence have been held by the courts to be liable to pay damages where they have failed to take appropriate actions to comply with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Further, the provisions in Bill C-469, related to proceedings against the federal Crown, are consistent with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, chapter C-5, section 33. Section 3 clearly provides that the Crown is liable for damages for torts committed by a servant of the Crown.

It may be noted that John Mark Keyes in his article, “When Bills and Amendments Require the Royal Recommendation: A Discussion Paper and Guidelines”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, volume 20, number 4, winter 1997-98 at page 8 cites Erskine May, 21st edition, page 717, on cases were a royal recommendation is not needed as including, “Widening the jurisdiction of a court or creating offences although they may have the effect of increasing the costs of the administration of justice”.

Further, any potential liabilities under part 2 of the bill are highly speculative and that they would be substantial is even more so speculative.

For example, government might first avoid a court action or settle such an action if filed by diligently exercising its powers or duties to undertake an environmental assessment or to complete an action plan for a threatened species within the statutorily prescribed timeline or by passing new regulations, or by a myriad of other measures.

Even if an action under Bill C-469 has its day in court, the court is provided a wide range of remedies, including directing the government to implement measures previously announced and budgeted for, or otherwise prescribed by another law. Thus any court-ordered payments under section 19 of the bill are highly speculative and could only occur after the government has made decisions to not avoid or remedy the problem by any other means.

The Speaker similarly rejected such speculation in multiple rulings on September 27, 2006, page 3314; on February 8, 2007, page 6548; and again on February 14, 2007, page 6816. The Speaker found that Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act did not require a royal recommendation.

The parliamentary secretary's second argument was based on part 4 of the bill. Section 26 requires the Auditor General to examine proposed regulations and bills for consistency with Bill C-469 and to report any inconsistency to the House. It was the parliamentary secretary's assertion that this role differs significantly from the current duties of the Auditor General under section 5 of the Auditor General Act and would require new government spending.

This section requires the Auditor General, in accordance with such regulations as the governor in council may choose to make, to review any new regulations or bills to ensure consistency with the purposes and provisions of Bill C-469, and to report such findings to the House of Commons.

Let us first consider the mandate of the Auditor General as prescribed in the Auditor General Act. The act also establishes the Office of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development. Section 21.1 prescribes a broad mandate to the commissioner to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting including on matters reiterated in the preamble of Bill C-469, inclusive of integrating environment and the economy, protecting ecosystems, and respect for the health of Canadians and the needs of future generations.

Section 23 of that act requires the commissioner to make examinations and inquiries considered necessary to monitor the extent to which specified departments have contributed to meeting sustainable development targets and report to the House actions including exercising the authority of the governor in council. Part of that authority includes the promulgation of regulations, and review and authorization of proposed laws.

The Auditor General Act also requires that the commissioner, on behalf of the Auditor General, report annually to the House of Commons on the progress of the federal government in implementing the federal sustainable development strategy and meeting its targets, which would include consideration of new statutes and regulations.

Thus, Bill C-469 would not create a substantially new or radically different mandate than that already prescribed for the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainable Development within the Office of the Auditor General, as provided in the Auditor General Act.

I further submit that section 26 of Bill C-469 is very similar to that considered in the Speaker's ruling on February 8, 2007, at page 6548 on Bill C-288, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. The Speaker in that instance held that the bill did not require a royal recommendation as the new responsibilities placed on the national round table on the environment and the economy by that bill did not meet the test, to quote the Speaker's words, of “whether some entirely new activity or function is being proposed which radically diverges from the activities already authorized in existing legislation”.

It may be noted that in the same ruling, the Speaker also provided, “Now it might be argued that this would increase the workload of the national round table, but even if this were so, an increase to its budget would be sought through existing appropriation arrangements”.

As the Speaker has clearly ruled, it is important to distinguish between an effect of a bill potentially increasing the workload of a department or agency and an effect of establishing distinctly new activity or function. It is my humble submission that the same logic and same conclusion would apply to part 4 of Bill C-469 regarding the role specified for the Office of the Auditor General.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the Speaker's February 11, 2008, ruling on Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act; however, in that case, Bill C-474, at first reading, originally proposed repealing the sections in the Auditor General Act concerning the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and creating a new independent commissioner appointed by the governor in council who would not only assess federal progress on sustainable development but also provincial progress.

At committee stage, Bill C-474 was amended to rely on the existing position of the commissioner established under the Auditor General Act and to add the monitoring and reporting duties on federal progress toward sustainable development granted to the commissioner under that act. The Speaker on June 10, 2008, at page 6819, held that the amended bill no longer needed a royal recommendation. It is that amended Bill C-474 that is analogous to Bill C-469.

Finally, in closing, as a private member's bill can proceed through second reading and committee stage regardless of whether it requires a royal recommendation, in whole or in part, recognizing it may potentially be amended in committee or at report stage, a ruling from the Speaker would be most welcomed in advance of the vote at second reading and referral to the committee. This will inform the committee members whether any amendments may be necessary to be considered to avoid any potential need for a royal recommendation and thus maintain the possibility of a third reading vote.

Private Member's Bill C-309

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 2009, you made a statement with respect to the management of private members' business. In particular, you raised concerns about five bills which, in your view, “appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown”.

One of the bills you mentioned was Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario. I would note that in the last Parliament, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming brought forward the same bill as Bill C-499, which the Speaker on June 10, 2008, noted appeared “to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown”.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that the bill must be accompanied by a royal recommendation because it would require new spending. Bill C-309 would create a new agency of government and provide for the appointment of personnel. Clause 8 of Bill C-309 establishes the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario as a separate and distinct agency of the Government of Canada.

The requirement of a royal recommendation for organizational changes such as establishing a new agency is referred to in the Speaker's ruling of July 11, 1988, on two motions to amend Bill C-93, An Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The Speaker said that to establish a separate department of government “undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the federal treasury in order for the new department to function on a daily basis”.

When an almost identical bill was introduced in the first session of the 38th Parliament as Bill C-9, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

The second reason Bill C-309 would require a royal recommendation is that it provides for the appointment of personnel. There are numerous precedents indicating that appointments must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. For example, on February 25, 2005, the Acting Speaker ruled that Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence required a royal recommendation because it provided for the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. The parent act specified that all commissioners were to receive remuneration.

Clauses 4 and 9 of Bill C-309 provide for the establishment of advisory committees in the appointment of a president of the agency, positions that do not currently exist. Furthermore, the clauses explicitly state that the remuneration of the appointees shall be fixed by the Governor in Council. Provisions for salaries to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund clearly impose a charge on the public treasury. I submit that clauses 4 and 9 would therefore require a royal recommendation.

Clause 13 of Bill C-309 would also require the appointment of personnel, in this case, the officers and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the new agency. Although clause 13 does not specifically provide for the remuneration of these employees, the Speaker ruled on February 11, 2008 with respect to Bill C-474, the Federal Sustainable Development Act:

Section 23 of the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint includes the power to pay. As the provision in Bill C-474 is such that the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these representatives, this involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

These precedents apply to Bill C-309. The bill would create new spending and therefore requires a royal recommendation.

Motions in Amendment

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate.

Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are deemed adopted, Bill C-474, as amended, is deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motions Nos. 1 to 4 agreed to, bill, as amended, concurred in at report stage with further amendments, read the third time and passed)

It being 2:07 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:07 p.m.)

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in what appears to be the final round of debate on Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act.

This bill was introduced by the hon. member for Don Valley West. I want to add my best wishes to him as he leaves this place and goes on to new challenges. It is great that he is able to leave the House of Commons on this note, where there is all party agreement to support this important piece of legislation. It is a good way to end his career in the House of Commons.

I want to make it clear that New Democrats support this legislation. We supported the decision only minutes ago to ensure that the bill gets to the Senate after the finish of the debate today. It is very important to move this bill forward.

When we talk about sustainable development, I cannot hear that term without thinking of a friend and colleague, a former member of the B.C. legislative assembly, the former member for Burnaby-Willingdon and the former B.C. environment minister, Joan Sawicki.

Joan Sawicki is someone who has a clear vision of sustainable development for Canada. She has worked tirelessly and continually to educate Canadians and political leaders on the importance of inventing the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection in all we do as governments and as a society. I want to thank Joan Sawicki for raising my consciousness on this issue and for helping get this kind of commitment on the political agenda here in Canada.

I also want to note that the bill before us today is very similar to Bill C-437, which was tabled by my NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster back on May 1, 2007. It seems that one way or another this legislation was going to be before the House. That shows the importance of it and the dedication from all corners of the House to see this dealt with.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster acted quickly on the suggestions of the Suzuki Foundation when they were originally put forward. He also engaged a process of community consultation with the people of Burnaby and New Westminster before tabling his version of the bill. I know that he had looked forward to the opportunity to have that legislation discussed in the House, but as I said, we are pleased that the member for Don Valley West, who had a higher priority on the private members' list, was able to get it before the House and through the process and before us today.

At the time that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster tabled his legislation, which is very similar to this bill, he noted that Canada was 28th of 30 countries in terms of environmental performance and that we were the eighth largest producer of carbon dioxide. That was a record that needed to be addressed. This legislation will go some way to dealing with some of those issues.

The legislation before us was developed by the Suzuki Foundation as part of its report, “Sustainability within a Generation”. In that report it noted that the countries that are ranked highest in the OECD in terms of progress on environmental issues have sustainable development strategies in place. Canada was one of the countries that did not have such a strategy in place, along with Belgium, Spain and the United States.

Canada has committed to such a strategy at many international forums, including the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the 1997 Earth Summit+5 in New York, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Finally, we are debating legislation that would ensure that this issue remains planted firmly on the agenda of our government here in Canada.

Sadly, over the years, Canada missed the mark on some of the key best practices with regard to sustainable development, best practices such as comprehensive goals and targets. Canada was often criticized for having fragmented goals across many sectors. On the other hand, Sweden had 16 legislated environmental quality objectives and 71 measurable targets with short, medium and long term timelines. It is a very different way of looking at the idea of comprehensive goals and targets.

Another key best practice is progressive monitoring and reporting. Canada has some monitoring, but it is not linked to targets specifically. There is no benchmarking of Canada's performance relative to that of other countries. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, monitors 68 environmental indicators and assesses them against quantifiable goals.

Another best practice was environmental governance and leadership. Before the legislation came forward, Canada had no single integrated strategy and no overall government leadership and coordination on the environment.

Other countries, like Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom all have central agencies and high level prime minister's office and cabinet committees that coordinate environmental development and implementation of environmental policy.

It is clear that there was lots of room for improvement, lots of room for Canada to catch up with countries to which we often look for ideas, for commitments and to whose standards we hold ourselves, so this legislation is very important in that regard.

In this corner of the House, New Democrats believe that a sustainable development strategy is a complex of important measures. It is like a three-legged stool that needs a number of measures to be successful.

We believe that a cap and trade system is very important to a sustainable development strategy. We believe that institutional changes to implement cap and trade and to promote and enforce the culture of sustainable development in government is also a key component

We also believe that selective green fiscal measures that would cover specific measures is also very important. That is why we are pleased that today we are dealing with one aspect of that which is a crucial piece of an overall sustainable development strategy and will lead us in the right direction.

It is very clear that we must integrate a commitment to sustainable development into all the work of government. It is hard to believe that anyone who reflects on the current situation of our planet would deny the importance of taking this step. I am glad that there is unanimity here in the House on this issue.

My colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster put it this way when he tabled his version of this bill. He said:

It is time that sustainable development be a front-running issue for every ministry and become a part of our political culture.

We believe Bill C-474 would do just that.

We also believe that Bill C-474 complements, in a very positive way, Bill C-377, the Climate Change Accountability Act put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth and the leader of the New Democratic Party.

That bill provides scientifically based medium and long term targets for Canada to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. It identifies specifically the necessary steps to avoid the 2° threshold for catastrophic climate change. The destination of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 and regular benchmarks are identified in the bill of the member for Toronto—Danforth, which has passed the House and hopefully will be considered by the Senate in short order.

This bill, we believe, complements that well because it provides a legal framework for preparing and implementing a national sustainable development strategy that aims at integrating through institutional changes, through comprehensive sustainability goals and measurable targets to achieve sustainable development here in Canada.

We believe this is a very important measure to be taking to complement other measures already taken by the House and passed here in this place.

This is a very important achievement of Parliament. I again thank the member for Don Valley West and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who have shown great leadership in taking the work of the Suzuki Foundation and ensuring it reached the floor of the House of Commons.

It is important to note that all parties have ensured the passage of this legislation today. Taking this step toward establishing in law a national sustainable development strategy for Canada is crucial and important and is work that we can all be proud of here today.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clearly state the Bloc Québécois' position on Bill C-474, not only at the report stage, but now at third reading as well.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, although not without some reservations.

We have talked about this at length. This bill calls for the following: the development and implementation of a national sustainable development strategy; the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators; and the appointment of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development accountable to Parliament. This bill sets specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada and makes consequential amendments to another Act.

Clearly, the purpose of Bill C-474, introduced by the hon. member for Don Valley West, is to develop a sustainable development strategy based on the precautionary principle and to create a position of commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that would be independent of the Office of the Auditor General. In any case, that was the original idea, to create an independent commissioner position. We will see this later. As the hon. member for Don Valley West said earlier, everyone has made some compromises, including the Bloc Québécois. It was not, and is still not, our first choice, far from it, but we agree with the bill on the whole.

The bill also provides for the creation of an advisory council on sustainable development tasked with advising the federal government on the national sustainable development strategy that will be developed.

Although the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-474 in principle, it still felt that the bill needed a number of improvements. Indeed, in its first incarnation, the bill had some serious flaws in terms of respect for Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

In fact, as originally drafted, the bill enabled the federal government to unilaterally set Canada-wide targets in many areas for which the Government of Quebec has responsibility, including the rate of recycling, use of agricultural land and urban development. These provisions were unacceptable to Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois said as much. The Bloc Québécois always defends the interests of Quebec and the Government of Quebec, so we obviously had to oppose these amendments.

That did not prevent us from supporting the principle of a federal sustainable development strategy. However, from the outset, that strategy should have applied only to areas of federal jurisdiction and the actions of federal institutions. Consequently, as usual, the Bloc Québécois worked constructively to correct the deficiencies in Bill C-474.

We proposed an approach based on cooperation between the federal government, Quebec and the provinces, whereby all the governments could adjust their policies so as not to interfere with each other. Most importantly, we proposed that the federal government absolutely respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

Too often, the federal government interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions. It constantly creates federal initiatives that not only duplicate what Quebec is already doing, but sometimes negate the effectiveness of Quebec's own initiatives. The bill reflected this “Ottawa knows best” attitude.

Fortunately, the member for Don Valley West had an open mind and very early on adopted a cooperative attitude that led to improvements to the bill.

Still, it would be wrong to say that the bill is perfect. The Bloc Québécois feels that it could have been improved further, especially as regards the actions of the departments.

Specifically, the Bloc Québécois feels that the strategies developed by the various departments should have included a requirement to conduct an environmental assessment of policy, plan and program proposals. Currently, only the cabinet directive on the environmental assessment of policy, plan and program proposals requires that departments conduct such assessments, and this requirement is too often ignored.

Moreover, this was among the findings in the report the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled in March 2008. I had prepared some lengthy quotes, but suffice it to say that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development confirmed both that there is a lack of political will and that the directive is unevenly applied.

The Bloc Québécois wished to create a mandatory legal obligation to fix the problem.

As for the other problems with the bill in its original form, the vast majority of them have been corrected. The bill now applies only to the federal government, its departments and institutions. As well, it is more precise and respectful in its terminology, speaking of aboriginal peoples instead of restricting consultations to first nations alone.

Unfortunately, the bill was gutted in committee: the Commissioner of the Environment, who was supposed to be independent and subject to the same conditions as the Auditor General, who is appointed under the Auditor General Act, will not be. He will remain part of the Auditor General's Office.

The Bloc Québécois is disappointed with this outcome. We argued strongly in favour of the independence of the Commissioner of the Environment, both from the government as well as from the Office of the Auditor General, to which he now reports.

Again, this position is much too important not to be granted the same status as the position of Auditor General. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development must be able to carry out audits, conduct reviews and make recommendations objectively, in the same way as the Commissioner of Official Languages, and cannot simply examine the department's financial statements and look at whether it is following procedures. The commissioner must be able to require real action to protect the environment.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-474. The federal government must adopt a sustainable development strategy in order to limit its actions and the actions of its departments and agencies. The Bloc Québécois realizes, however, that a lot remains to be done to ensure that the environment is truly respected. This includes making the position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development truly independent.

The national sustainable development strategy must include some standards. It should also include implementation strategies for meeting all of the targets. These include caps on emissions, by sector and region, that are consistent with the targets; economic instruments; and an emission trading system with a declining cap.

The strategy has a number of goals, including the one in clause 5(2)(d), which says, “Canada should become globally renowned for its leadership in conserving, protecting and restoring the natural beauty of the nation and the health and diversity of its ecosystems, parks and wilderness areas.”

The Forest Stewardship Council is an organization that certifies forest management. If I may, I would like to say a few words about how we need to consider whether, in addition to the measures in clauses 8 through 11 of the bill, this national development strategy should call on the government to set an example by using only FSC-certified paper.

As I just said, the FSC is an organization that certifies forest management. FSC certification recognizes that forest owners are managing the resource responsibly. They do not clearcut; they reforest and they respect biodiversity within the forest. Certification shows that FSC members have conducted a detailed evaluation.

FSC-certified paper is paper made from fibre from a certified forest. That is the kind of paper we in Parliament, in government, should commit to using, thereby providing a concrete example of sustainable development.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the sponsor of the bill, the member for Don Valley West, and wish him a happy retirement. He has earned the right to say “Mission accomplished.”

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for his kind remarks and his friendship over the years, which will continue even after I leave this place.

I would like to express my gratitude to all the parties in the House for their support and cooperation in bringing Bill C-474, the federal sustainable development bill, to this stage and providing very helpful suggestions for its amendment.

I would also like to acknowledge those who have contributed to the drafting and revision of Bill C-474. The bill reflects, to a large degree, the work of the David Suzuki Foundation with input from the Natural Step Canada group. It was developed and amended through extensive consultation with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The person who has worked harder on this bill than anyone, who has negotiated with all the parties and legislative council and environmental groups, is one of our own parliamentary interns, Delaney Greig, for whom I predict a great future. She was ably assisted by my legislative assistant, Bo Romaguer.

The original reason I chose to put forward Bill C-474 was a universal dissatisfaction with the existing departmental sustainable development strategies process. The system of departmental reports has received criticism from both Conservative and Liberal ministers of the environment, from former commissioners of the environment and sustainable development and from the green ribbon panel that was established last year to review sustainable development strategies process.

Specifically, there has been broad recognition of the need for greater accountability in the sustainable development strategy process and for a coherent, overarching federal strategy developed at the heart of the government.

These are exactly the changes made under the federal sustainable development bill.

Bill C-474 calls for the development of a federal sustainable development strategy containing goals and targets developed by the Minister of the Environment with cabinet oversight. The federal strategy will be examined by Parliament, an advisory council and the commissioner prior to its coming into force. A progress review will occur every three years through a report to Parliament and a corresponding assessment report from the commissioner. Further, departmental sustainable development strategies will be required to comply with and contribute to the federal strategy and will also be assessed.

Moving through committee, a number of amendments have been made to Bill C-474 to eliminate the need for a royal recommendation, as the Speaker has earlier recognized, and to draw in features that reflect the interests of all the parties represented here today.

As the government was contemplating changes to the sustainable development strategy process, it considered the route laid out in Bill C-474. Bringing together our thinking and theirs, we have amended Bill C-474 to satisfy all four parties. We have all had to put a little water in our wine.

Working on Bill C-474 has been a constructive and collaborative experience. The bill before us in the House today is a tribute to the way in which parties can work together in this place, in committee, in a minority Parliament, where committees are not always so collegial.

In particular, recognition is due to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who has shown leadership by bringing forward constructive amendments and building support for Bill C-474 among his colleagues, in committee and in the House. I also thank him for his very kind words about my retirement.

I also want to acknowledge the support of the members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

Given the atmosphere of cooperation around our efforts to improve sustainable development planning in the federal government, we look forward to ending debate in the House of Commons on Bill C-474 today. Although this will lack the theatrics of a vote, I have elected to request that the House adopt today Bill C-474 with the required technical amendments that have been moved so that it may progress to the Senate before we adjourn for the summer.

I must express to all members my appreciation for their assistance in enabling this bill to progress to this point and, if it is the will of the chamber, sending it on to the Senate. Bill C-474 will make sustainable development a priority at the heart of Canada's government for our future generations. I am honoured to have been able to shepherd this legislation through the House of Commons as my last act as a member of Parliament.

It is in the spirit of cooperation which has characterized the debate on this bill, and having consulted with the government and opposition parties, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, at the end of today's debate on Bill C-474, standing in my name on the Order Paper, all report stage motions be deemed adopted; the Bill be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments; and be deemed read a third time and passed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the government's report stage amendments to Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

This motion is to correct the difference between the English and the French versions in clause 3. The discrepancy is that the English version says that the federal sustainable development strategy will make environmental decision making more transparent and the French version says the purpose of the act will make environmental decision making more transparent. This difference should be corrected and, thus, the amendment.

I would like to also begin by thanking my colleagues who are here today for their hard work in the environment committee stage in amending the bill into workable and effective legislation. I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Don Valley West, who is the sponsoring member of the bill, for his dedication. It has been a pleasure working with him to advance Bill C-474. I would like to take this occasion to wish him well as he will soon embark on a new chapter in his life, a new career. Congratulations to him, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that all parties in the House were able to work together to show goodwill and a common commitment to environmental sustainability. Bill C-474 will help to increase transparency and accountability and to improve federal sustainable development planning and reporting.

The bill before us today would enable the government to better articulate its environmental sustainability priorities and to align the work of departments to support them. For the first time since the departmental sustainable development strategies were introduced in 1995, there will be an overarching federal sustainable development strategy to set the direction for the supporting departmental strategies. Federal departments will all be rowing in the same direction, together.

The forthcoming federal strategy will contain federal goals and targets for sustainable development, along with implementation strategies for each department. This approach will ensure government transparency and accountability for progress to advance sustainable development.

Indeed, the development of a federal sustainable development strategy is long overdue. There have been a number of commitments over the years to develop one. The first commitment was at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1995. This commitment was reiterated at the 2002 world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, South Africa. The government is very pleased to meet this international commitment through this legislation and to have been able to work with all the political parties for its development.

The bill would also respond to numerous calls by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to develop a federal strategy. The commissioner has often likened the existing approach to sustainable development planning in Canada to trying to assemble a large jigsaw puzzle without the picture on the box. The legislation would finally provide that overarching picture.

In addition to the development and implementation of a federal sustainable development strategy, the bill includes a number of important elements that would serve to advance sustainable development here in Canada. For example, the bill calls for the establishment of a new office within Environment Canada to develop and monitor progress on the federal sustainable development strategy.

The bill would also establish a sustainable development advisory council with a broad membership that would include provincial and territorial, aboriginal and non-government representatives, as well as representatives from business and labour communities.

Bill C-474 outlines an important oversight role for cabinet in the development and implementation of the federal strategy. This again will increase accountability for progress on sustainable development to the highest political levels and will ensure that environment sustainability is kept at the forefront of government decision making.

The bill also outlines an important audit and assessment role for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development largely through consequential amendments to the Auditor General Act, which outlines more broadly the roles and duties of the commissioner. Through these proposed amendments, the commissioner will be required to review a draft of the federal strategy before it is finalized to ensure that the targets and their implementation strategies will be capable of being assessed. The commissioner will also report on the extent to which departments and agencies have contributed to meeting the targets set out in the federal sustainable development strategy and assess the fairness of the information contained in the progress report to be prepared by Environment Canada. Again, these are important steps toward increasing transparency and accountability to all Canadians.

The bill is in keeping with good pieces of work brought forward by the government, all in an effort to improve environmental protection in Canada. This includes initiatives such as the national vehicle scrappage program, introduced by the environment minister on June 4, and many other initiatives through the government's comprehensive plan to combat climate change and improve air quality through our government's “Turning the Corner” action plan.

The bill represents an important step in Canada toward living up to both domestic and international calls for the development of an overarching sustainable development strategy. The government is pleased to support Bill C-474.

Again, I want to congratulate every member who was part of the environment committee and who worked hard on this bill and, again, the member for Don Valley West.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I must first read a Speaker's ruling concerning Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-474.

Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate, and the voting patterns for the motions are available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-474, 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Canada Elections Act

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the end of debate on Bill C-474, standing in the name of the member for Don Valley West, all report stage motions be deemed adopted, the bill be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments, and be deemed read a third time and passed”.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, that at the end of today's debate on Bill C-474, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, all report stage motions be deemed adopted, the bill be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments and be deemed read a third time and passed.

Royal Recommendation—Bill C-474, Bill C-499 and Bill C-550

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has a statement to make regarding the management of private members' business.

After a replenishment of the Order of Precedence, the Chair has developed the practice of reviewing these new items so that the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The aim of this practice is to allow members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the June 4 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that Bill C-499, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, standing in the name of the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, as well as Bill C-550, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the member for Compton—Stanstead, give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation in these cases, that is Bill C-499 and Bill C-550, or in the case of any of the other bills now on the Order of Precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to make a brief statement regarding Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, which was already on the order of precedence.

The Chair would like to remind members of a ruling made on February 11, 2008. In that ruling I stated that the bill in its form at that time needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The Chair notes that the hon. member for Don Valley West had expressed the desire to work with the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to overcome this difficulty.

On June 5, 2008 the committee reported the bill with amendments. The Chair has carefully examined these amendments and confirms that the bill, as amended, no longer requires a royal recommendation. Consequently, debate may proceed and, when appropriate, all necessary questions to dispose of the bill will be put.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 21 minutes.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-474, National Sustainable Development Act. A reprint of the bill has been ordered.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This amendment deletes lines 23...because we don't need the definition of “petitioner”, as the term is no longer used in Bill C-474.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Good afternoon, colleagues. This meeting will come to order.

Before we begin with our witnesses, who we're delighted to welcome here today, there are a couple of minor business items. A notice has not been sent for tomorrow, but a room is available if the committee is available to meet on Bill C-474. I understand that Mr. Warawa and Mr. Godfrey have been or will be discussing the remaining clauses.

Mr. Warawa, do you want to comment on this, in terms of whether you're available and agreeable to meet tomorrow?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Warawa, we could come back to Bill C-474 at the meeting on Monday. If we can agree upon a time earlier than that, we could do it then.

[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?

[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?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I too found the meeting very productive, which was a pleasant surprise. I appreciated the willingness of everyone at that meeting to work together to come up with an agenda.

From that meeting, the Minutes of Proceedings that we each have lists a recommended schedule of meetings, and today's listing there is completing clause-by-clause of Bill C-377. Then starting April 2, this Wednesday, we'd be starting on Bill C-474. It would be nice if we could do it that quickly. I'm not optimistic that we will be able to complete Bill C-377 today. Now, if we do, that would be great, but at this point it might be a little bit of a tight push.

We could possibly have April 2 also for clause-by-clause on Bill C-377 and then, starting April 7, beginning the process of Bill C-474. So that would just be moving everything back one meeting, and I hope there would be agreement by committee to do that. We'd just delay everything by one meeting, so we would start Bill C-474 on April 7, and today and on April 2 we would have clause-by-clause for Bill C-377.

That's my suggestion, and I hope there will be acceptance of that.

[Ron Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Joining me are my colleagues Richard Arseneault, Andrew Ferguson and Mary Anne Strong.

As you know, we tabled our Status Report last week. It included 14 chapters, five of which showed satisfactory progress and nine of which showed unsatisfactory progress.

We have provided to the committee, in both official languages, the summary of last week's Status Report, which I presented during the in-camera briefing on March 6. I understand that this document will be appended to the minutes of this meeting. I would normally repeat this presentation this afternoon, but time does not permit.

I am here to offer suggestions, at the chair's invitation, for topics from our Status Report that the committee might consider appropriate for future hearings.

As you know, our audits have revealed that two of Canada's fundamental tools for good environmental management are broken, and that both, in our view, need to be fixed. I am referring to the sustainable development strategies, which we reported on last October, and to the strategic environmental assessments, which we reported on last week. Both of these tools would benefit greatly from the introduction of an overarching government plan or strategy for dealing with environment and sustainable development issues, along the lines suggested by Bill C-474 that we discussed on Monday.

Under the circumstances, the committee might consider holding a hearing to flush out what's being done to review and hopefully to strengthen both the sustainable development strategy and the strategic environmental assessment processes. Environment Canada and the other departments and agencies with which they are working could discuss the review of the sustainable development strategy process that is now under way. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and related entities could speak to the review of the strategic environmental assessment process. The purpose of such a hearing would be to monitor and encourage government as these reviews are carried out and to help ensure that they consider the need for an overarching government-wide plan or strategy.

A second hearing could focus on contaminated sites where satisfactory progress is being made and on contrasting this with areas of concern in the Great Lakes where progress is unsatisfactory.

The purpose would be to explore, with Environment Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and possibly Infrastructure Canada, the possibility of applying lessons learned in dealing with contaminated sites to areas of concern.

A third hearing might look at the greening of government operations. Public Works and Government Services Canada, together with Environment Canada, could be invited to explain what they intend to do in future years to strengthen this area.

Finally, a fourth hearing might focus on invasive aquatic species. Witnesses could be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and also Transport Canada.

Mr. Chair, these are four suggestions that the committee may wish to consider as it develops topics for future hearings. Obviously, we would be delighted to discuss any other topics from our Status Report that the committee considers appropriate for a hearing.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my brief opening statement. We would be very pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I again want to thank Mr. Thompson for being here today. Your testimony has been much appreciated.

And also, thank you to Mr. Godfrey for presenting this bill. I look forward to working with him on this.

What I'm concerned about, though, is the haste to move forward. I'm actually going to make a motion that we have two more meetings.

I'm thinking of the OECD. They've just released their 2007 report. I think it may be helpful to hear from them and the United Kingdom's department of the environment. Also, we have the Quebec environment minister coming. We have NRTEE coming. We have the Department of Justice coming. To rush through these.... These are all very important witnesses, and we want to allow enough time.

So I'm suggesting that we have two more meetings. I think we're scheduled for our next meeting on April 2 after the break, and then we were going to go into clause-by-clause the following week. I'm asking that we have two more meetings the following week.

That's my motion, that we have two more meetings on Bill C-474.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm going to be quite brief about presenting some of the changes I'm proposing beforehand so that members will understand what they're talking about--not the previous bill.

As Chad has noted, there's been lots of criticism of various departmental sustainable development strategies over the past few years, of which our own parliamentary secretary, Mr. Warawa, has been critical, the green ribbon panel on the future and the current and former commissioners have been critical, and the former environment minister herself was critical.

There was a particular focus on a lack of an overarching national strategy, and as the commissioner will be saying, I hope, in the second hour, reminding us of his own words of last Thursday and Friday, there is a crucial need for some overarching framework for looking at sustainability. Indeed, on Friday a group of 11 NGOs from the environmental world also laid out the need for government to be accountable through measurable objectives, indicators, and progress reporting.

In the original draft of Bill C-474, there were two objectives. One called for the creation of a national sustainable development strategy--and that stays there. The second was for the creation of an independent commissioner for the environment and sustainable development.

Since the bill was first presented, we have heard concerns from Mr. Lukiwski, Mr. Warawa, Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Jean, and the Speaker of the House that the second point, that is to say the establishment of an independent commissioner, would involve the creation of a new office and spending of new money, and it would require royal recommendation and thus was problematic for a private member's bill. Therefore, I have removed that reference, as you will see in the amended draft, which I hope you've all had, en français et en anglais. That is to say, we will continue to simply use the existing office of the commissioner, as established by the Auditor General Act, so that no royal recommendation is necessary.

A second issue was raised by the Speaker, Mr. Warawa, and Mr. Jean in that Bill C-474 creates an advisory council but is silent on the question of its remuneration. Again, this calls into question the need for royal recommendation. As a result, in subclause 7(3) of the amended draft, this concern has been met by explicitly stating that the advisory council cannot be compensated.

So the two main concerns of the Speaker and others have been addressed.

Members, and more particularly Mr. Bigras, Mr. Vellacott and Mr. Jean, have brought up another concern, that of the way in which areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction are treated in the bill and in the schedule.

In recognition of this problem, any reference to the provinces has been removed from section 13. Furthermore, new wording is suggested for subsection 5(2) and paragraph 8(2)(a) of the bill, in order to have a portrait of the state of sustainable development at the national level while respecting those areas which fall under provincial jurisdiction as well as the federal government's specific responsibility vis-à-vis its departments and its policies.

It is essential to work with the provinces if we want to achieve sustainable development in Canada. We therefore invite members to propose amendments to sections 5 and 8 with that in mind.

A final major change, based on criticism from Mr. Jean and confirmed by the current and former commissioners, is that there is a need for division between the development and implementation of a sustainable development monitoring system. Recognizing this, responsibility for development of the monitoring system has been moved to the cabinet secretariat, under paragraph 13(a). This returns the burden of responsibility to the secretariat, with the commissioner responsible for commenting on performance through the reporting process.

In addition to the above, several housekeeping amendments have been suggested to the new draft. For example, we have decided that we don't need to put in a new petitions process; the current process will cover what we need to do. We don't need to have the consequential amendments to the Auditor General Act because we're not changing the role of the commissioner. The commissioner will no longer be required to evaluate whether the draft national sustainable development strategy is likely to meet its target, as this would go beyond the commissioner's role. Instead, he or she will review the strategy and comment as to “whether the targets and implementation strategies are capable of being assessed”.

In conclusion, what I'm trying to do is to move Bill C-474, to begin a process to move Canada towards a path of sustainable development. As Mr. Park has indicated, this is not the final word on how to deal with sustainability; this is a means to initiate a new way of government thinking that will inevitably evolve.

Looking at the schedule at the back of the bill, you will see that the aspirational aspects of it are illustrative and evolving. We are nowhere near the goals outlined in the back of the bill. We will undoubtedly have to work hard, in concert with the provinces, to progress in this direction. Canada has an obligation to its children, its environment, its long-term economic vitality, and its international commitments to establish a national sustainable development strategy.

We want to remind ourselves that other countries have done this--Sweden, the U.K., Norway, and Germany--and we've got a great opportunity ahead of us, as well. So our objective is to get going on the right path.

Thank you very much.

[Chad Park, Senior Sustainability Advisor, The Natural Step Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godfrey, and Chair. It's a pleasure to be here and to have this opportunity to address the committee.

I am here today to speak to you about the sustainability principles that are in clause 5 of Bill C-474 and about why they are a critical component of the bill.

In my role with The Natural Step I've worked with dozens of organizations that have found these principles helpful in sustainability planning, from municipalities as diverse as Whistler in B.C.; to the town of Olds in Alberta; to the Halifax Regional Municipality in Nova Scotia; to associations, small businesses, and community service organizations, such as the Santropol Roulant in Montreal; and to large corporations such as Alcan, The Co-operators, and Nike.

In each of these organizations and communities I've witnessed first-hand the power of having a rigorous set of scientific sustainability principles that act as a compass to provide direction and structure for sustainability change initiatives.

So I want to address three things in my remarks this afternoon: first, where do the principles come from?; second, why are they important generally?; and third, why are they important specifically for this bill?

Before I begin, though, I want to emphasize the essence of my presentation; that is, if we're going to be strategic about sustainability, we need to know where we're headed. We need to know what success is in terms of sustainability.

Let me start with where the principles come from. In the late 1980s, frustrated by seemingly endless public debates about matters of health and the environment, a network of leading Swedish scientists from a variety of disciplines, led by a cancer researcher, Dr. Karl-Henrik Robèrt, engaged in a process of trying to articulate a scientific consensus about the requirements for a sustainable society. Rather than debating each of the requirements in detail, they sought a principle-based definition that was broad enough in scope to encompass all the details with a full systems view. They began by focusing on what they could agree on, rather than what they disagreed about.

After more than twenty iterations of the document, the scientists achieved a consensus, and their findings were endorsed by the King of Sweden. They were mailed out to every Swedish household and incorporated into the curriculum of every Swedish school. The not-for-profit organization called The Natural Step, which I'm involved with, emerged as a vehicle to disseminate this material and to work with governments and businesses to incorporate it into their planning and decision-making.

Since then, the scientific work of that first network of scientists has been scrutinized and elaborated upon by a much larger international network of scientists and published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. The sustainability principles have been adopted by thousands of businesses, governments, and not-for-profit organizations as guiding principles for sustainability. And the process of applying them in this wide variety of organizations has helped to further develop the original material into a tangible, concrete planning framework for decision-making for sustainability.

What is it that the scientists agreed on? I'll spare the committee the details of the rigorous science that underlie the principles except to say that it begins with an understanding of the earth as a system and an acknowledgement of fundamental scientific laws.

By recognizing that the sustainability of life on earth is really about the capacity of natural cycles to run forever and that nature was doing just fine with that until relatively recently, the scientists identified three main ways that we as human beings in a modern industrial society disrupt natural cycles to cause the many problems that end up as headlines in our newspapers. So there are three main ways, and I'm just going to go through each of them as they relate to the three principles in clause 5.

First, we dig up substances from the earth's crust--various minerals, oil and gas, and so on--that have taken thousands or millions of years to be deposited. We then use them in our products and processes and then release them into nature. We do this at a faster rate than nature redeposits those substances back into the earth's crust. As a result, they accumulate in natural systems and eventually cause problems if their concentrations get too high. Too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mercury in our fish, cadmium in our kidneys, and so on are all examples of that.

From this comes the first sustainability principle, which is mentioned in paragraph 5.(1)(a). Note that the first principle does not say that a sustainable society requires that we not use any material at all from the earth's crust. It does not say that there is no mining in a sustainable society. It does say that whatever materials we use from the earth's crust, we must use them in a way that prevents their accumulation in natural systems. This means using them efficiently and using them in products and processes where they can be recaptured and reused rather than released into the atmosphere, water, or soil.

Second, we combine molecules into new, more complex molecules that nature has never seen before, and we use these complex molecules in products and processes that eventually allow them to be released into natural systems. Because nature has never seen them before, it cannot break them down within its regular cycles, so they too begin to accumulate. From this comes the second principle, which is noted in paragraph 5(1)(b) in the bill.

Again, note that the second principle does not say that there are no chemicals in a sustainable society; it says that a sustainable society will require that we be efficient in our use of them, and most importantly that we use them in ways that allow them to be captured and reused rather than dispersed into nature, where they can accumulate.

Third, we physically degrade nature's ability to run natural cycles by encroaching into natural areas, overharvesting renewable resources, and eroding nature's ability to process our waste. That leads to the third principle, paragraph 5(1)(c).

All of the downstream effects we know and hear about regularly in the news, like climate change, acid rain, deforestation, depletion of fish stocks, and toxins in our toys that accumulate in our tissues, can be traced back to one or more of these three ecological mechanisms. They are all downstream symptoms of more fundamental problems in how our societies are designed.

Now that I've covered the basic principles, I want to talk briefly about why I think they're important. First, while the sustainability principles are the minimum requirements for a sustainable society, they provide direction for efforts to become more sustainable by actually defining what that means.

Because they are based in rigorous yet simple science that everyone can agree with, they help groups of people within and between organizations overcome their differences to form a common shared goal. Also, in organizations that are striving to be innovative and leaders in their adoption of more sustainable practices and technologies, the principles provide the boundaries within which the innovation process can be focused.

The principles are non-prescriptive. They simply tell us the minimum conditions for sustainability and leave individual organizations, communities, and governments to work out what this means for them in their unique situation. Organizations begin to scrutinize each and every decision, whether they are capital decisions, research and development priorities, education programs and so on, for their ability to bring the organization a step closer to alignment with the principles.

We do not need to, nor could we, reach sustainability with any single action or investment, but we can use the principles to scrutinize our investments and programs for how well they are moving us and how well we're being innovative. Without rigorous principles to provide a solid understanding of success, too many well-intentioned efforts in sustainable development become exercises in describing the status quo or justifying marginal improvements on the status quo.

The leaders of the sustainable development movement, in both the public and private sector, are those who can tap into the creative capacity of their people to bring about transformative innovations that create positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes. The sustainability principles help us know what is ultimately required to achieve this.

Now that I've described the principles and why they're important, I want to leave you with why I believe they're important and relevant to this bill.

First, this is clearly a place where there are widely differing views. In such a context, there's a strong need for a shared language for something so important to our nation's future as sustainability. My sense is that this is vitally important, especially considering that governments will change, politicians will come and go, priorities will shift, but the forces driving the need for sustainable development will only strengthen over time.

Second, we want Canada to be a leader in the coming sustainability wave, capitalizing on the capacity of Canadians to be innovative in sustainable development. My sense is that establishing the parameters for that innovative effort is one of the goals of this bill.

Third, we have heard numerous times from the current and previous commissioners of the environment and sustainable development that the federal departmental sustainable development strategies lack a clear sense of what they're striving for. It is no surprise, then, that they often end up being exercises in eloquently describing the status quo or marginal improvements to it.

Rigorous sustainability principles that can be used to derive tangible goals and metrics are vitally important to be able to monitor progress and to be accountable citizens. Legislation is where principles are described, it's where we lay out our aspirations for justice and the principles that guide our actions. Today I've laid out three basic principles that together describe the underlying causes of all our environmental challenges.

In conclusion, I would like to underscore that addressing each problem one by one, after it becomes a threat, is a terrible way to go about society's business. A national sustainable development act is therefore an ideal place to enshrine a core set of sustainability principles, because they will be fundamental to our success over the long term.

That's all. Thank you.

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

I have no objections to that happening at the second meeting. However, I want things to be different than they were for Bill C-377, when we had to bring in some major amendments and had very little time to do so. Although I said that I agreed with the principle of Bill C-474, the legislation has several flaws that will probably need to be corrected. I wouldn't want us to be caught short at the last minute. It's clear to me that in the case of Bill C-377, the testimony provided by constitutional experts was conclusive in terms of the amendments that were presented.

I would prefer to deal with this as quickly as possible.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is to all members. The clerk simply needs to know the names of witnesses for Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act, by Wednesday from all parties. So I would ask you to do so if you haven't submitted names for that, because our first session will be on Monday next. I will be counting on introducing the bill and with it some of the proposed amendments that are in response to criticisms that have been made in the House by various members. I want to indicate the kinds of changes that I'd be bringing forward anyway so people don't waste their time attacking things I agree with them on.

I would also expect to bring in people from the Suzuki Foundation and from the Natural Step because some of their principles are incorporated in the principles of the bill. So that's one point, Mr. Chair.

Secondly, I would ask the indulgence of members when the Commissioner of the Environment comes forward, in the two sessions that we have set aside for him, and to carve out a bit of time--not endless amounts of time--for him to make comments at that time on Bill C-474, because it does affect the role of the commissioner himself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Order, please.

There are three housekeeping items to deal with, and perhaps we could do those first. The first is a point of order by Mr. Godfrey regarding witnesses for Bill C-474

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Just before everyone leaves, could you think about the witnesses for Bill C-474 and try to get those names to us, say by next Thursday or thereabouts? Just keep that in mind.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

National Sustainable Development Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-474, under private members' business.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-474--National Sustainable Development Act--Speaker's Ruling

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the commentary of the hon. member for Don Valley West on a very important bill, An Act to require the development and implementation of a national sustainable development strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada.

Recently the polling firm POLLARA asked Canadians what their priorities were, what were the most important things on their minds in terms of what the Government of Canada and Parliament should address. It came as no surprise that the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were the top issues to be addressed.

Throughout the debate so far, it is very clear that all parties, except the government, support the proposed legislation. The government continues along the same kind of approach toward climate change issues as it did when Kyoto was the big topic of discussion.

I remind the House that our international commitment to achieve targets within certain timeframes was opposed by the government. In fact, it described Kyoto as a money sucking socialist plot. That is the starting point of the Government of Canada with regard to climate change, that it is some sort of a plot to somehow deal with the economic implications to deal with climate change and how it might impact what the government really has in mind.

The government wants the economic benefits to continue to operate at the same and more intense levels than we have today. I must admit it did not surprise me that one of its proposals was to allow the petroleum industry to continue to produce its products at the same level of intensity that created greenhouse gases. There was no reduction. It could continue to increase as long as the net intensity was not greater than today. That is basically a policy of, “Let's do more of nothing. Whatever we have today is acceptable”.

All the science before Canadians is very clear. We have a problem and it has to be addressed, not simply left to the next generation to try to deal with the consequences of the failure of the government to address climate change issues. This is the real issue.

Look at the record. Look at what the government has done or what it has not done with regard to climate change. Virtually every program introduced by the previous Liberal government has been cancelled by the current government. Why? Because it does not want any impact on the economy.

The whole concept of having sustainable economic development calls on Canadians, business and individuals, to do their share. It means that when we do things within business and industry, we have to ensure not only do we not make it worse, but we make it better. We have to show progress.

It is not good enough to say that some time in 2050 we will hit some target. I doubt anybody who is currently in the House will still be here come 2050. This is passing off some sort of an undertaking to someone else. It is very clear that by 2050 the trend line we are on right now will have enormous consequences. If we look at poverty groups, like Make Poverty History, they will talk about the implications of not addressing climate change on the international scene.

The economic impacts of doing nothing are going to be much greater than anyone can imagine. It is going to exacerbate the economic deprivation of many countries around the world. It is going to take away important land that people need to earn livelihood.

Canadians have been asked, through established programs, to do their share. If members are interested, they should go to a website called www.carbonfootprint.com, which is a very important site. It gives tips to Canadians as to some of things they can do to make a contribution toward reducing CO₂ emissions. It shows line by line the monthly reduction of CO₂ emissions if we do certain things, like getting a tune-up for our cars or buying energy efficient appliances. I think there are at least a dozen or so examples of what each and every Canadian can do.

Canadians are doing that and they are prepared to do it. They are prepared to buy energy efficient automobiles if the government would only get it straight as to what the feebates schedule should be. The Conservatives raise programs and suggestions, but never have a plan to follow it through.

I raise these things because the bill has articulated, in a very clear fashion, the extreme importance for us to have a long term sustainable development strategy. It means that we ensure we leave a situation better than when we got it, and to date we have not. To date, we need to have a plan.

Bill C-474 would provide a framework in which Canadians can have some confidence. It would provide us with the feedback mechanism we need, the reporting relationship to Canadians that we have made responsible decisions, taken responsible action and that we have the measurement systems in place to show the progress to Canadians. We need to deliver. It is not enough to talk. The time now is for action, and it is simply not happening.

It is really unfortunate that the government does not want to embrace a commitment to having a national strategy in which Canadians can feel confident. This is very unfortunate for Canada today and tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the bill put forward by the hon. member for Don Valley West.

I first want to put on the record that the Conservative government believes in sustainable development. We do not just give lip service to it. We have taken some real action in the areas of water, air quality and climate change, which is why we are implementing comprehensive regulations of industrial air emissions. For the first time ever, we will be regulating the big polluters so they do their part as well.

As I said, we are taking action on protecting the water quality across our country, including tough new regulations against the dumping of raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and oceans, and by improving sewage treatment in municipalities. I was kind of taken aback when I realized that we did not have laws in place in respect to that already. It just makes a lot of sense. I think most of the public would be quite appalled or taken aback if they knew that we did not already have laws in place, that 13 long years of Liberal governments had not put something in place or previous governments before that.

Now we are doing that. We also are regulating chemicals that are harmful to human health and to the environment. Our approach to toxic chemicals management leads the world.

It does not end there. We have done our best in terms of protecting Canada's natural heritage. In terms of those protected areas, major expansion is occurring as well.

We are also working on a new approach to sustainable development planning in Canada that builds upon the existing legislative framework, the framework that we already have. Indeed, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has already made the point that significant improvements to the current process can be made within the existing legislative framework and with the existing tools that we have. All it really takes is the will to act and to move ahead on it.

When our Conservative government came into office, federal departments had started into the preparatory process for the fourth round of sustainable development strategies. The government acted to make immediate improvements where possible. The Minister of the Environment, in tabling the fourth round of sustainable development strategies, was clear that there was a lot more to be done in advance of the next round.

This Conservative government recognizes that what is needed is action, not more legislation, more paper and so on, and certainly not more time and money spent on government processes.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and others have recognized Canada's current legislative tool as having a great deal of merit, even if it has suffered from some challenges in terms of its implementation.

It would be shortsighted to repeal what has the potential to be a real contribution to the federal planning process prior to completing a thorough analysis of it to determine how it might be better implemented. We have the tools needed to make substantial improvements for sustainable development and that is fully what we intend to be doing.

The proposed Liberal private member's bill that is before us today is unnecessary and it is problematic on a number of levels. Some of those have been sketched out already but I will draw members' attention to a few more.

First, the scope of the bill is unclear. Although it is called the national sustainable development act, the stated purpose of the legislation is to “...accelerate the elimination of major environmental problems and make environmental decision-making more transparent....”.

I am certain that my colleague is fully aware of the fact that the environment and sustainable development are not one and the same. They are not synonymous. To be sure, they are mutually exclusive, but there are some different facets involved.

Second, the bill calls for the government to enshrine a set of sustainable development goals in legislation. The legislation itself, however, contains two rather different sets of sustainable development goals. One is in the text of the bill and another one is in a schedule appended to the bill, the latter of which includes some vague goals that are outside the stated purpose of the bill, as in the preface, one of those being creating genuine wealth.

Third, the bill states in its title that progress would be reported in “against a standard set of environmental indicators”. However, those indicators are not mentioned anywhere in the bill, nor is there any mechanism noted for the development of those environmental indicators.

Furthermore, one of the sets of goals in the bill includes goals that are not environmental in nature. If the legislation really does mean for there to be environmental indicators, exactly how non-environmental goals can be measured against a set of environmental indicators is rather unclear.

A fourth point is that clause 13 of the bill calls for the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development to report on the state of the Canadian environment nationally and also by province and to report on progress in meeting each of the listed sustainable development goals nationally and by province on an annual basis relative to the performance of other industrialized nations.

What is troubling about this part is that the bill implicates the provinces in terms of reporting on both the state of the environment and on their progress in achieving the sustainable development goals. However, the bill does not provide for any tools to engage them in acting on the goals, such as by providing new resources, nor on the results of any report findings. This is quite unworkable and amounts to a recipe for conflict with the provinces and our territories.

Fifth, the timeframes associated with this piece of legislation are wholly unworkable. The government would be thrust into an ineffective cycle of continuous planning and preparing with no time left for implementation before the cycle would repeat itself again. The Conservative government believes in action, not just planning for action as the Liberals have sometimes done.

One of the most outstanding examples is in clause 10 which states:

Within 30 days after a National Sustainable Development Strategy is tabled in each House of Parliament, the Minister shall make regulations prescribing the targets and the caps referred to in the National Sustainable Development Strategy and revoke any regulations prescribing targets and caps referred to in the National Sustainable Development Strategy that was tabled previously.

Anyone familiar with the regulatory process, as the member no doubt is, knows that this is completely unworkable. Good pieces of legislation take time to prepare. There are notices and there are various things in that process. They require true and genuine consultations with the stakeholders. They are not something that can be drafted in just a matter of days.

A sixth problem with the bill before us today is that the process outlined for consultation in the bill in reference to the development of the national sustainable development strategy is ineffectual and unnecessarily onerous. It calls for consultations only once a draft of the strategy has already been written. Every guide to meaningful consultations will tell us that consultations need to be started early, well before the approach is decided upon in respect to what we are going to do.

The approach outlined in the legislation before us today only brings in consultations late in the process. It requires an onerous level of ministerial involvement and response, and is a staggering waste of time and resources for an uncertain result.

Regarding the ministerial duty to make regulations, this piece of legislation is highly and unnecessarily prescriptive. It enacts upon the minister a number of duties, leaving no room for ministerial discretion. It is unproductive and does not enable the minister to make effective improvements to the sustainable development planning process. Therefore, such rigidity is a hindrance to the process, not a help.

In summary, the bill is unnecessary. Its scope and its intent are unclear. The authorities and processes it describes are not thoughtful and not thought out in a clear and deliberate way.

What is needed to make progress on sustainability is not new legislation. It is the ability to set national federal level objectives in a reasonable manner and within workable timeframes, and to have a clear mechanism for measuring the government's progress. We can do that under existing legislation and with existing tools.

This Conservative government is committed to sustainable development. That is why we are taking concrete action to make improvements rather than spending time and resources on instituting new and unnecessary legislative processes. That is why we will not be supporting the bill. We feel it is flawed on a number of points as we have outlined here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

I would like to begin by expressing our support for Bill C-474, which was introduced by my Liberal colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We will vote in favour of the bill in principle. In essence, the bill has two main goals. First, it provides for a sustainable development strategy based on the precautionary principle. Second, it provides for the appointment of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development with the Auditor General's office.

We support the bill's first goal, which would create a sustainable development strategy for Canada. One thing I really like about the bill is that it reminds us of the importance of applying the precautionary principle to every decision made by the federal government. This has not been the case in the past, as we have seen clearly in various environment and sustainable development committees, not to mention with the environment commissioner, in the ten years since I first came to this House.

This principle is recognized internationally and should apply to all sectors and federal departments. That is where the problem is now. On page 29 of her 2003 report, the environment commissioner reminded us that in terms of sustainable development, objectives and related performance expectations need to be clearer, more concrete, and more results-oriented.

Furthermore, results—especially outcomes—need to be more systematically measured. Performance reporting needs to be improved. That was a 2003 report.

I know that the Liberals are introducing this bill today, but the commissioners' reports show that the previous government did not implement a sustainable development strategy. Today, in this House, they can very well brag about introducing a bill on a sustainable development strategy, but there were a number of shortcomings in terms of sustainable development with the previous government. Once again, these shortcomings were revealed in the report by the Commissioner of the Environment in 2007. On page 39, she said:

In half of the strategies we examined this year, the targets are neither time-bound nor expressed in measurable terms. Most do not refer to a clear deliverable, and the frequent use of words like "promote" and "facilitate" renders many commitments unclear, along with the departments' level of responsibility for accomplishing them.

Neither the previous Liberal government nor the current Conservative government have implemented adequate measures to ensure that sustainable development underlies each federal plan, policy and program. This is the other subject I want to discuss today.

The federal government has a useful tool at its disposal, which is the strategic environmental assessment. This is a useful tool as part of a sustainable development strategy but it has never been implemented here in Canada. For more than 25 years, the Prime Minister's Office has directed that every federal government policy, plan, program and bill—from every department—must be subject to an environmental assessment. These assessments should not be left to just the promoters. They must also be the rule in all federal departments.

It is clear that neither this government nor the previous one ever applied strategic environmental assessment with any real diligence. In fact, a few years ago, in 2004, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development titled a chapter in one of her reports “Greening the tax system: Finance Canada dragging its feet”.

In chapter 4 of that report, Ms. Gélinas noted that the federal government could not assure the public that the environmental impacts of new plans, policies or programs bound for Cabinet approval would be assessed systematically. Again using the example of Finance Canada, the commissioner referred to government Bill C-48, which was passed and would eventually entail yearly expenditures of $260 million primarily benefiting the oil and gas industry. Finance Canada never conducted a strategic environmental assessment on that bill, even though such an assessment is a key component of the department's sustainable development strategy.

I find it ironic that, on the government side, the member who spoke on a sustainable development strategy this morning was our friend from Fort McMurray—Athabasca. That is where the growth in tar sands oil production will be the highest, yet the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca is the one lecturing us about a sustainable development strategy. This goes to show how much the federal government, and this Conservative government in particular, cares about a sustainable development strategy.

I would also like to talk about interference in the provinces' jurisdictions. We support the bill in principle, because it emphasizes applying the precautionary principle by adopting sustainable development strategies, which must be specific to each department. However, Bill C-474 involves a great deal of interference in the provinces' jurisdictions.

A few years ago, Quebec adopted its own sustainable development strategy and appointed its own commissioner of the environment. We are wondering why this bill sets clear medium- and long-term targets in a series of areas. I will give a couple of examples.

Is it the federal government's job to set recycling targets for the provinces and especially for municipalities? Is it the federal government's job to develop a water consumption strategy? I do not think so.

In Quebec especially, we have proven that our water quality is among the best and that we are able to put in place sustainable development strategies based on the precautionary principle. In addition, our environment commissioner has an international reputation. Harvey Mead works as an independent government watchdog to make sure the Government of Quebec is not tempted to ignore the principles of sustainable development, which seek to build a cohesive society through economic, social and environmental development.

In conclusion, we will support Bill C-474 because we believe that each department must have a sustainable development strategy that incorporates the precautionary principle. We also support the appointment of an independent commissioner, as we have often stated in committee. We believe that this commissioner must be independent and must have similar powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Privacy Commissioner. But it is clear that if this bill is referred to committee, we will have no choice but to amend it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on the second reading of Bill C-474, the proposed National Sustainable Development Act.

As my colleagues have stated previously and as the government recently laid out in the Speech from the Throne, this government is clearly committed to improving environmental sustainability throughout this country.

We are implementing a very ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gases and to cut air pollution. For the first time ever, our government will be regulating the big industrial polluters. It took this government to take those steps to do that.

Among other measures, the government has taken action to protect water quality, which is so important to Canadians, including tough new regulations against the dumping of raw sewage as well as improving raw sewage treatment in municipalities and first nation communities across Canada. We are expanding our capacity to enforce our environmental laws. We are taking the environment very seriously.

We know that protecting and sustaining our natural environment is central to the quality of life of Canadians and this country, to our very prosperity and to the health and well-being of all Canadians. We have also been clear about our commitment to greater accountability in every step of government, especially in the environment, in advancing sustainable development.

When the former minister of the environment tabled the fourth round of sustainable development strategies in December 2007, she stated the need to take action to address the inaction of previous governments and to ensure that Canada become a leader in sustainable development.

Today, we already have the tools to do the job for Canada to become a leader in sustainable development. Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has enshrined sustainable development in actual legislation. We are proud of that.

The Auditor General Act ensures that federal departments and agencies take action to advance sustainable development within their mandates. Each of these departments and agencies reports every year to Parliament on its progress. That is correct: every year.

The Auditor General Act also ensures that federal progress on the environment and sustainable development is monitored by the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Over the past 10 years, the commissioner's reports have offered constructive criticism on governments' progress on sustainable development strategies. According to the reports, what has been lacking by past governments is simple: action.

However, that is changing under our Conservative government. Based on the commissioner's most recent report, this government has committed to undertake a thorough review of the current approach in order to achieve major improvements in sustainable development strategies. The commissioner is pleased with our commitment. We have agreed to complete our government-wide review by no later than October 2008.

Bill C-474, the proposed act before us today, does not create a more effective tool and is problematic for a number of reasons.

For example, the bill proposes to establish a role for the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that is both unworkable and unnecessary. Let me outline a few of these issues.

First, Bill C-474 extends the authorities of the commissioner to that of both advocacy and audit, a clearly unworkable situation. The proposed bill, for example, states that the commissioner shall “provide advice and monitor progress in achieving sustainable development”, as is stated in paragraph 13(4)(c).

It is very difficult to be viewed as a non-partisan body if that body both advises on policy and then subsequently audits its implementation. Such a body would be open to accusations of bias given that it would be auditing what it helped to create. It is a clear conflict of interest.

Indeed, in its recently released report, the green ribbon panel established by the Auditor General carefully circumscribed what the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development should advocate about. It warned against an advocacy role related to policy but supported advocacy on best practices and environmental management, which is exactly what we are arguing today.

This is an issue understood by the Office of the Auditor General. Its performance manual, in 2004, stated:

Special care is required when audit findings touch on government policy. As officers of Parliament, we do not want to be seen to be second-guessing the intentions of Parliament when it approves legislation, or of Cabinet when it selects a certain policy direction.

That is an important statement.

Second, Bill C-474 would extend the authority of the commissioner beyond that of federal jurisdiction to that of assessing the state of the environment by province and of reporting annually on provincial performance in meeting sustainable development goals relative to the performance of other industrialized countries.

This is just the kind of interference in the jurisdiction of provinces and territories that has caused a number of wrangles, and, in the past, one in which we cannot be and should not be a party. A clear interference in provincial jurisdiction; something that the government stands well entrenched again.

Third, Bill C-474 proposes the creation of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and such government bodies as a cabinet committee, secretariat and advisory council. The creation of a cabinet committee is clearly the prerogative of the acting prime minister.

The creation of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, the secretariat and an advisory council would require, clearly, the government to spend money and, therefore, a royal recommendation would be required as you, Mr. Speaker, have recently ruled. These issues also, clearly, require much further study.

However, it is time to act. The government is taking proactive steps on the environment. Very clearly, this is a government of positive action for Canadians, getting positive results.

Fourth, Bill C-474 would unnecessarily deepen the authority of the commissioner with respect to the current petitions process.

Petitions are letters sent by Canadians to the Auditor General as a way to present their environmental concerns and questions to specific ministers of the federal government. Ministers are required to respond in writing within 120 days.

The commissioner concluded, in his 2007 report, that on balance the petitions process is a good news story. He noted:

Our retrospective study of petitions shows that petitioners value the process, which provides a forum for voicing their concerns and assures them of a formal response.

The commissioner also flagged that the volume and the complexity of petitions has increased significantly in recent years. The current approach to petitions, according to the commissioner himself, is working very well. Let us spend our efforts on what really does need our attention.

That is the proposal of this government: investment where it is necessary and where we are going to get positive results. We are currently taking steps to ensure that implementation of sustainable development is strengthened across the federal government.

As I mentioned earlier, a management review is currently under way that will draw on a decade of experience with the current approach and best practices internationally. That will identify clear means to improve the current approach.

That is what the government is looking forward to doing, and is doing on many other files.

In addition, the government has taken steps to ensure greater department accountability for the strategy process. The Federal Accountability Act, which we are all on this side of the House very proud of, ensures that deputy ministers are responsible before Parliament for their management responsibilities, and that includes departmental commitments to sustainable development.

We already have the legislative and regulatory authority to strengthen the sustainable development strategy process and to ensure accountability for Canadians. This government is taking positive steps for Canadians, and we are getting positive results.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on December 11, 2007, concerning the national sustainable development act, Bill C-474, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, and its requirement for a royal recommendation. I wish to thank both the hon. parliamentary secretary as well as the member for Don Valley West for their submissions on this matter.

In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary contended that the bill's provisions to establish a new and independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would not only require new government spending but also represent a change in the conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation that accompanied the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act.

He also contended that the establishment of a new Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was similar to the creation of a new government department and that such provisions needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. He cited a ruling of July 11, 1988 when two report stage motions, the first of which proposed the establishment of a separate department of government and the second a separate commissioner of multiculturalism, were ruled out of order on the basis that they offended the royal recommendation which accompanied that bill.

Finally, citing a ruling of September 19, 2006 on the Development Assistance Accountability Act, Bill C-293, which concluded that a royal recommendation was required for the establishment of an advisory committee for international cooperation, the parliamentary secretary argued that the creation of an advisory council on sustainable development also requires a royal recommendation on the basis that it would result in the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

In his submission on January 31, 2008, the hon. member for Don Valley West conceded that the bill needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. He indicated that he would work with other members at the committee stage to amend the bill in such a way that any impediments to its progress would be removed. The Chair wishes to commend the hon. member for his constructive approach.

In order to assist the House, the Chair has carefully reviewed the provisions contained in Bill C-474 to identify the provisions that caused concern regarding the royal recommendation while at the same time responding to the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary .

The appointment of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is currently carried out under section 15.1 of the Auditor General Act. It states:

15.1(1) The Auditor General shall, in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act, appoint a senior officer to be called the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who shall report directly to the Auditor General.

Bill C-474, on the other hand, would provide for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to be appointed by the governor in council as an independent commissioner instead of being appointed by and reporting to the Auditor General. Although funds may have already been appropriated for the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development under the Auditor General Act, the Chair agrees with the arguments put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the effect that the provisions contained in Bill C-474 would clearly alter the conditions under which these appropriations were originally authorized.

Bill C-474 also proposes a new mandate for the commissioner. The current mandate is spelled out in section 21.1 of the Auditor General Act. It states:21.1 The purpose of the Commissioner is to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress of category 1 departments towards sustainable development—

Category I departments are defined in the act as any departments named in Schedule I of the Financial Administration Act, in the schedule to the Auditor General Act or identified by the governor in council under subsection 24(3).

However, clause 13 of Bill C-474 would modify the mandate of this new independent commissioner to require, namely, the development of “a national sustainability monitoring system to assess...the state of the Canadian environment, nationally and by province” as well as “...the national and provincial performance in meeting each sustainable development goal...” listed in the bill.

Goals listed in the bill include “generating genuine wealth, shifting to clean energy, producing healthy food and building sustainable cities”, to quote the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice points out, on page 711:

A Royal Recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.

The clause 13 requirements would impose additional functions on the commissioner that are substantially different from those foreseen in the current mandate. In the Chair's view, clause 13 thus alters the conditions set out in the original bill to which a royal recommendation was attached.

Finally, the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that the creation of the sustainable development advisory council provided for in Bill C-474 requires a royal recommendation since this would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

Clause 7 of the bill provides for the governor in council to appoint 25 representatives to the advisory council. Section 23 of the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint includes the power to pay. As the provision in Bill C-474 is such that the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these representatives, this involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation. If the intention of the bill is that these representatives would not be paid, then this should be clearly expressed in the bill.

For all of these reasons, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

However, debate is currently on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate, of course in conformity with the Standing Orders of the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

The House resumed from December 11, 2007 consideration of the motion that Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Sustainable Development Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise on Bill C-474 sponsored by my colleague from Don Valley West.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley West on the new opportunities which will be opening to him next summer and into next fall. The gain for the Toronto educational system will be a great loss for this House. The hon. member has served here for a number of years and has gained immeasurable experience on environmental issues as well as experience in the administration of government and the structure of government not only as a parliamentary secretary and a committee chair, but also as a minister of the Crown. There is no better member than the hon. member for Don Valley West to bring forth a bill like this one which deals with government administration.

This initiative is quite timely. It connects with the root notion of sustainable development and the seminal gathering of nations that occurred in Rio in the mid-1980s. It connects with one of the chapters of the Brundtland report which came out of the Rio conference.

It connects with the chapter that talks about the need for new governance structures to deal with the challenge of sustainable development which was on the horizon as far back as 20 years ago. It is a lengthy chapter. I do not know if anyone in this House has had a chance to read it, but I read it recently and it led me to propose a change to the structure of the government to help bring environment closer to the centre of the government's agenda, not just the Conservative government's agenda, but the agendas of all future governments. That was the idea that we should create a minister of state for water who would report to the Minister of the Environment. The minister of state would link the 20 or so departments that have something to do with the water issue at the federal level. But I digress, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that.

We are at a watershed moment in the history of mankind and societies of the world. By that I mean we have had different watershed moments in history and the hon. member for Don Valley West will appreciate this because he is a historian by training. Having studied economic history myself, I know there were some big defining eras in economic history going back, for example, to the industrial revolution.

When societies started to industrialize and when economies became more sophisticated, academics and people in government began to develop measures for how these economies were progressing. Of course the most famous measure of how a society's economy is doing is gross national product. This is a measurement which has existed for centuries.

As societies progress they change and new methods of measurement are required. New milestones are required in order to ascertain in what direction a society, or in this case an economy, is headed and to what extent the quality of life of citizens is improving.

The whole concept of GNP has evolved as we have discovered that the capitalist system, albeit the greatest system of economic organization in the world, has negative consequences. We realize that just looking at GNP does not necessarily tell us what the quality of life of people living in capitalist economies is at a particular moment in time.

For example, we understand that just because the GNP is rising does not necessarily mean that the quality of life of citizens at a particular time and in a particular place is getting better. For example, if we look at the issue of crime, the more crime there is the more people buy alarm systems and the more they need to hire security guards. Therefore, the more money a person spends on services and products, the more the GNP goes up. We need to revisit certain key measurements from time to time.

We are at the very beginning of the environmental era where the environmental issue is a driving force and the organizing principle more and more of our society. It is actually quite timely that this bill is being debated at a moment when representatives from around the world are in Bali to discuss how important the environment has become and how crucial it is that we deal with it if we want to safeguard this planet going into the future.

We are in the environmental era and we need measurements to see how we are doing. We need measurements in order to track our progress toward dealing with those very pressing challenges that are knocking on our door and threatening our very existence on this planet.

Therefore, I think it is very timely that the hon. member for Don Valley West has introduced this bill that would not only lightly encourage the government to develop measurements on how we are doing in achieving sustainable development, but that would require the government to do so, that would have the force of law to push the government in this direction.

Even though governments have tried to affect organizational change in the public service toward better and more integrated environmental policies, we have seen that it is very difficult. We are talking here about a revolution. This is not a question of a discrete measure that will achieve a discrete objective. This is not cutting the GST by 1%, where all we need to do is press enter on the keyboard and everything cascades through the system and, lo and behold, people pay 1% less federal sales tax on their goods and services.

It is much more than that. We are talking about a revolution in the way our society is organized and in the way it moves forward. I think we are beyond voluntary measures and prodding and words. We need the force of law.

We had something called the environment and sustainable development coordinating committee, which was established in an effort to integrate sustainable development policies of various governments. However, the Commissioner of the Environment told us, over and over again, that the committee had no impetus, that it rarely met and that no one took it seriously.

The voluntary approach on this particular issue of restructuring government for sustainable development has had its time and it is time to move forward.

I am particularly interested in the issue of water. It is extremely important that we develop our goals and measurements for dealing with the action that is required to ensure we have an abundant supply of safe and clean freshwater in this country.

There is a rumour that the government is considering cutting the number of water monitoring stations across Canada. I believe there are 3,000 right now. If we had a national sustainable development act that spelled out that Canada needs to have a minimal number of water monitoring stations or that it should increase the number of water monitoring stations, then the government could not get away with that with impunity.

I have another example in the area of water. We need to map the aquifers, the groundwater in this country, to see how much we have left so that we do not overuse--

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim any credit for standing up and improving the noise level in the building, but I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-474. The bill deals with sustainable development within the government system and the necessity for a national process for promoting sustainable development.

I am glad to see that our Liberal colleagues have woken up to the requirement for promoting sustainable development. During their many years in government, they did not promote this. The Liberal government's promotion of development throughout its 13 year course was simply to allow the market to make all the decisions, to allow others to take away any sense of industrial strategy, energy, security, any of those things. It simply was not part of their demeanour. They simply acquiesced to the direction that others took. In that process, they put Canada in a very precarious situation, perhaps not for today, but as we move ahead in the future.

The Conservatives have come into power since then and they have proven to be unable to move any further along this road than the Liberals did. That is partly due to their ideological commitment to the marketplace and to the understanding that decisions on complex issues such as sustainable development can be made in a context of profit and return to investors. Over the last while there has been an unsustainable development process.

My area of expertise is energy. At one point in time Canada kept a 25 year reserve of natural gas for our own protection and to ensure that Canadians would be well equipped to handle future changes. The reserve is now down to nine years. Through the 1990s and the early part of this decade, there was a massive sell-off of natural gas. The alliance pipeline gave the industry the ability to virtually strip whatever resources we had in the western Canadian sedimentary basin. The need to reach out to other forms, such as coal bed methane or farther north supplies, has proven to be difficult and expensive.

The National Energy Board's November 2007 report regarding Canada’s energy future clearly states that by 2020 Canada will be a net importer of natural gas. We will have no exports. This situation just boggles the mind. It should be of great interest to this Parliament.

In the development of the tar sands and the massive tax giveaways and royalty breaks set up by the Chrétien and Klein governments in the mid-1990s, we saw the unfettered movement and development of this resource base in a fashion that serves hardly anyone in this country. Things are moving much too fast in the tar sands. Even Albertans are finding that this kind of development is simply not working for them.

The Liberals, after supporting Kyoto, continue to support unsustainable development. They ignored their Kyoto commitments and preferred to let the market make its own way.

When we look at tar sands development, probably each barrel of oil is making over 125 kilograms of CO₂ in its production in comparison to conventional oil at 29 kilograms. This situation is simply going to get worse. We have set ourselves on a course of unsustainability in this country that we are going to have a very difficult time turning around.

The Liberals failed as well to provide adequate funding for research and development of renewable energy. Canada was probably the lowest in the western world in investing in solar energy. The new government has made a slight improvement, but nowhere near the investment we should be making.

It is the same with wind power. The Liberal effort in wind power was half the value of the United States' effort and the credit that was given.

We certainly do not want to discourage the sustainable development strategy that is being proposed by the Liberals, but we have to ask what is really important about it. To me, what is important right now in sustainable development in the world is energy. Without a comprehensive energy strategy for this country, a Canada first energy strategy, we will never find our way down the road to sustainable development.

The Liberals and Conservatives, bless their hearts, bought in with the Americans and established a continental energy plan through the North American Energy Working Group and the SPP. They have basically taken the responsibility out of the House and given it to Washington. That is troublesome. In order for us to move toward a sustainable future, it is something they have to recant. They have to give up what they did with our southern neighbour. Without recognizing the inherent problems they have created by linking our energy future with that of the United States, we will not move toward sustainable development in energy.

Looking at this bill from an energy perspective, there are only a few references to energy in the bill. Clause 5 calls for the efficient and effective use of energy. That is a statement that could apply to many things. It could apply to the expansion of existing fossil fuel resources as we quickly deplete them. Clause 5(2)(b) talks about Canada being at the forefront of the clean energy revolution.

To the Minister of Natural Resources clean energy seems to mean nuclear energy. In a sustainable development strategy, one might question whether the production of nuclear energy is the direction in which to go. It is clean but it has inherent problems in many other respects. It is clean in terms of CO₂ emissions, but certainly in many other ways it has a limited ability.

We need an approach to energy which sees the sharing of renewable energy across the country through an east-west energy grid. That is one of the key elements in the development. We need to invest in infrastructure to promote sustainability. Investing in the equipment that can lead to a renewable energy future is the direction that we should take. Investing in liquefied natural gas terminals to bring greater amounts of imported fossil fuels to this country is not part of a sustainable development strategy, yet it is something that the Liberals and Conservatives continue to support.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act, introduced by the member for Don Valley West.

I see two objectives in Bill C-474. The first is to develop a sustainable development strategy based on the precautionary principle. The second is to create a position of commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that would be independent of the Office of the Auditor General. The bill also provides for the appointment of a sustainable development advisory council to advise the government on the national sustainable development strategy that will be developed.

I would like to talk about sustainable development and the precautionary principle. It should be noted that sustainable development has not been the credo of the successive federal governments in Ottawa. On the contrary, the federal government, both the Liberals and Conservatives, encouraged the development of the oil sands, a very polluting industry, instead of relying on clean energies or strategies that allow for sustainable development.

Although it is in the news now, the concept of sustainable development is nothing new. The expression “sustainable development” was popularized in 1987 after the publication of a report from the World Commission on Environment and Development entitled, “Our Common Future”. This report defined sustainable development.

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

However, people seem to forget that two concepts are inherent to the notion of sustainable development: the concept of needs and, particularly, the essential needs of the most vulnerable, to whom it is agreed the greatest priority must be given; and secondly, the idea that our technology and social organization can impose limits on the environment’s ability to meet current and future needs.

Thus, sustainable development has more than just one objective, since it has to do with social and environmental equity, not only between citizens, but also between generations. Thus, when we talk about our children, we are talking about our future.

The concept of sustainable development was revisited in 1992 at the famous United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At the conference, a clear message was sent regarding the urgency of reconciling economic and social development, and environmental protection for the simple reason that sustainable development is essential to ensuring the well being of human communities and the preservation of life sustaining ecosystems.

I would now like to discuss the precautionary principle. In the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development that closed the United Nations Conference on the Environment, the precautionary principle was recommended as the best approach to environmental management. Essentially it involves the application of prudent foresight, the recognition of uncertainty and error on the side of caution when decisions must be taken in a domain where knowledge is incomplete.

Further, the approach recognizes that the burden and standard of proof should be commensurate with the potential risks to sustainable use of resources and to the environment. Participants emphasized that a precautionary approach should consider subtle, sublethal effects and not rely only on population impacts.

The precautionary approach has been followed in other areas, in particular for specific resources such as the fisheries and for general issues pertaining to the integrity of the environment. Observing the precautionary principle can translate into environmental assessments, pilot projects, close monitoring of impacts, careful interpretation of data and management tailored to needs.

Once again, be it Liberal or Conservative, the federal government refuses to take a precautionary approach. The most basic approach is often rejected out of hand, and short-term gain takes precedence over future problems. This is true of the Conservative government, which is doing everything it can to reject the Kyoto protocol, even though economists as credible as Britain's Nicholas Stern are saying that it would cost far more to respond to the destructive effects of climate change than to attack the root of the problem now.

GMOs are another perfect example, because the medium- and long-term effects of genetically modified organisms on health and the environment are not yet known. In light of this, the Bloc Québécois has criticized the federal government for refusing to demonstrate transparency with regard to genetically modified organisms, by neglecting to make it mandatory to label foods that are genetically modified or contain genetically modified ingredients so that people are informed and can choose the foods they eat.

Even worse, the federal government still has not adopted the precautionary principle when it comes to GMOs. Given the lack of information about the medium- and long-term effects of GMOs, it is only natural to have concerns. In order to approve a transgenic product, the federal government relies on studies made by companies and merely reviews them. It does not conduct a systematic second assessment of all the plants and foods that are put on the market. Consequently, there is very little public or independent expertise in the evaluation of transgenic foods.

The objective of the Cartagena protocol is to help regulate the transboundary movement, transfer, handling and use of any GMO that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and pose risks to human health. The precautionary principle is an integral part of the Cartagena protocol and a condition of its application, as stipulated in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development adopted in 1992 at the earth summit in Rio. In the protocol, the precautionary approach is described as follows:

Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question...in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects.

Nevertheless, the federal government refuses to ratify the Cartagena protocol, ignoring what, to the common sense of Quebeckers, is the most fundamental prudence.

Let us now discuss the second objective of the bill, which deals with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In the past, the latter played a useful role in evaluating the government's policies with respect to environmental protection and hence the importance of ensuring complete autonomy in carrying out his responsibilities. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development played an important role in revealing the extent of federal assistance to the oil industry.

In his report tabled in 2000, he brought to the forefront the issue of subsidies to the oil industry.

I simply wish to outline the Bloc's position. We support the principle of Bill C-474; however, amendments will have to be made in future discussions.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for making the case for the need of a new bill. Clearly, we tried, starting in 1995, to do this. We went through several iterations. The then minister of the environment, the now Leader of the Opposition, tried his best to pull this together in one coherent fashion. That is why we need a new bill to get it done.

The previous Conservative minister of the environment endorses the concept of doing something different. The current parliamentary secretary has said the same thing. He recognizes that this is not working. We all recognize this is not working.

And so, when it is not working, what we need is a firmer legislative framework to get the job done. That is why we are introducing the bill. So, every criticism that the member has made, I actually support and that is why we need Bill C-474.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

moved that Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and pleasure that I rise to introduce and support Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy.

Last October, the federal environment commissioner tabled a report that criticized the government for having no overall sustainable development strategy, no targets, no standard set of indicators and no rigorous reporting schedule, in short, no accountability on the environment.

The government responded by committing to a year long study by the same department, Environment Canada, that failed in the first place. In this timeframe, we could imagine this going beyond a future election. The department that failed to get other departments to fulfill their obligations on sustainable development is now being asked to figure out why.

The government's response is insufficient given the growing concern among Canadians for the environment. We have to do better and we must do it faster. That is the purpose of the bill I am introducing today at second reading, Bill C-474.

Back in 1995, the previous Liberal government responded to the demand for a stronger environment policy by introducing major changes to the Auditor General Act that required all federal departments to produce sustainable development strategies every three years.

By the time the third set of strategies was tabled in 2004, however, it had become clear that they were becoming little more than bureaucratic exercises that were not integrated and that accomplished precious little.

As a result, the then environment minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, was tasked with bringing the strategies together under one coherent umbrella and producing a single national sustainable development strategy by mid-2006, as the commissioner has documented in his latest report.

The hope was that a single overarching strategy would ensure that a clear set of goals and targets, reported regularly, would make government more accountable to Canadians and deliver better results. Unfortunately, the current government allowed the fourth set of departmental strategies to be tabled last year, almost a year after it was elected, with many of the same flaws that existed before.

Even the previous environment minister of the government expressed her concern, noting:

When you look at the sustainability reports that we just released, they clearly do not have rigorous reporting. You'll see, when you read them. The language is vague. We just do not have the level of accountability around any commitment to actual results or benchmarking or targets.

That is what the previous commissioner of the environment is reported as saying in the The Ottawa Citizen of December 15, 2006.

The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment seconded that, agreeing in The Hill Times, as reported on November 5, 2007, that “it's crucial to have a strategy” and that it is “crucial that the Conservative government now come up with a sustainable development strategy” to ensure departments are held “accountable”.

Therefore, we have agreement on both sides of the House about the unsatisfactory nature of the current sustainable development requirements and their reporting.

Planning for the next set of departmental strategies will begin in approximately one year, but we cannot afford to allow another disjointed bundle of departmental reports to appear in two years. We need to fix the framework now.

There is a better way.

Canada should take its cue from countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, which by law require the production of a national sustainable development strategy, with clear goals and objective reporting. The results speak for themselves. Both the United Kingdom and Sweden perform much better environmentally than Canada in international comparisons.

Canada could be an international leader by adopting a similar legal framework. That is why I am introducing a national sustainable development act in the House of Commons that would usher in a new era of environmental accountability in Canada.

The act would legally require the government to develop and implement a robust national sustainable development strategy for Canada. This strategy would be monitored using a standard set of accepted environmental indicators by a fully independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development reporting directly to Canadians. There would be no smoke, no mirrors, just the straight goods.

Before examining the bill in greater detail, I would like to acknowledge as a source of the bill the work of the David Suzuki Foundation. In January 2007 the foundation published a report: “Toward a National Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada: Putting Canada on the Path to Sustainability within a Generation”. We have worked closely with the foundation in drafting the bill. I thank its members for their help.

I would also like to recognize the work of The Natural Step, an organization formed in Sweden, with a significant presence here in Canada, in shaping the sustainable development goals outlined in the bill.

Three of the key principles of The Natural Step underlie our sustainable development goals and we state them in the bill under subclause 5(1):

The Government of Canada accepts the basic principle that, in a sustainable society, nature must not be subject to the systematic increase of:

(a) concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust;

(b) concentrations of substances produced by society; and

(c) its degradation by physical means.

Those are the principles that we have incorporated in the bill which we recognize as coming from The Natural Step.

The goals themselves on which these principles are based are listed in subclause 5(2) in paragraphs (a) to (f).

The Government of Canada therefore adopts the following goals for Canada with respect to sustainable development:

(a) Canada should become a world leader in

(i) living in a sustainable manner and protecting the environment,

(ii) making efficient and effective use of energy and resources,

(iii) modifying production and consumption patterns to mimic nature’s closed-loop cycles, thus dramatically reducing waste and pollution,

(iv) reducing air pollution and achieving air quality standards necessary to eliminate human health impacts, and

(v) exercising good water stewardship, by protecting and restoring the quantity and quality of fresh water in Canadian ecosystems;

Among the goals, the bill goes on to say, are that:

(b) Canada should move to the forefront of the global clean-energy revolution;

(c) Canadian agriculture should provide nutritious and healthy foods, while safeguarding the land, water and biodiversity;

(d) Canada should become globally renowned for its leadership in conserving, protecting and restoring the natural beauty of the nation and the health and diversity of its ecosystems, parks and wilderness areas;

(e) Canadian cities should become vibrant, clean, livable, prosperous, safe and sustainable; and

(f) Canada should promote sustainability in the developing world.

How do we do this? Clause 6 proposes changes to the machinery of government in subclauses 6(1) and 6(2).

Subclause 6(1) states:

The Governor in Council shall appoint a Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, chaired by the Minister, to oversee the development and implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy.

The minister referred to is the Minister of the Environment.

Subclause 6(2) states:

The Governor in Council shall establish a Sustainable Development Secretariat within the Privy Council Office to support the activities of the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development.

In other words, within the heart of the government at the cabinet level there needs to be a cabinet committee whose constant, unwavering focus is on a sustainable development strategy, and that cabinet committee needs the support of a sustainable development secretariat within the Privy Council Office.

Our previous sustainable development strategy has failed because of a combination of a lack of political will and a lack of bureaucratic support.

Clause 7 of the bill envisages the creation of a sustainable development advisory council and suggests a proposed membership representing a variety of Canadians.

Clause 8 outlines the process for actually creating a national development strategy:

8(1) Within two years after this Act comes into force and within every three-year period thereafter, the Minister shall develop, in accordance with this section, a National Sustainable Development Strategy based on the precautionary principle.

(2) The National Sustainable Development Strategy shall set out

(a) targets for the short term (1 to 3 years), medium term (5 to 10 years) and long term (25 years) to dramatically accelerate the elimination of all environmental problems, including targets with respect to each item listed in column 2 of the schedule;

(b) the implementation strategy for meeting each target, which may include, but is not limited to,

(i) caps on emissions, by sector and region that are consistent with the targets,

(ii) economic instruments, such as emission trading systems with a declining cap,

(iii) penalties for non-compliance,

(iv) ecosystem-based management, and

(v) full cost accounting;

(c) the timeline for meeting each target; and

(d) the person who is responsible for implementing the strategy.

In other words, we are trying to capture all parts of the system.

Finally, subclause 8(3) states:

The Minister shall submit a draft of the National Sustainable Development Strategy to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, the Commissioner,--

That is the commissioner of the environment.

--the relevant Parliamentary committees,--

It is very important that there be feedback.

--the relevant stakeholders and the public for review and comment, for which the Minister shall allow a period of not less than 120 days.

After a process further outlined in the bill involving the cabinet committee on sustainable development, the national sustainable development strategy will be tabled in the House and the Minister of the Environment will make regulations prescribing caps and targets referred to in the strategy. Subsequently, all government departments will develop plans consistent with the strategy.

Clause 13 stipulates that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development shall monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and issue every year “a sustainability monitoring report”.

These are the broad elements of Bill C-474. I should also mention an important schedule, which is attached to the bill, describing in column one the goal and in column two the items relating to that goal. These goals and items are driven by and derive to some extent from the successful model of Sweden's environmental quality objectives.

Here are some examples of goals outlined in the schedule.

For example, the whole notion of “generating genuine wealth” is the goal. In order to do that, we need a new kind of index, one which will allow us to measure genuine wealth as opposed to that which is based on driving the environment down.

The second goal is “improving environmental efficiency”. How do we do that? Column two suggests that we might focus on energy consumption, materials consumption and water consumption.

Goal three is “shifting to clean energy”, which, by logic, makes us think that we must focus more on non-renewable energy as the item proposed.

Goal four tells us how we must focus on reducing waste and pollution and covers a wide variety of things, including greenhouse gases.

With this outline, the question is whether the Prime Minister and the government, who have criticized our inability to report on sustainability, will stand in the way of Bill C-474 or allow speedy passage of this bill.

Canadians are clearly demanding action on the environment. We have lost almost two years now under the Conservative government. It is now Canada's turn to show the same leadership that the United Kingdom and Sweden have in adopting their own versions of the sustainable development act I have introduced.

Having a new environmental accountability framework in place early in the new year would ensure that government departments would have enough time to adjust to the new regime before planning gets under way again next fall. We owe Canadians nothing less.

Royal Recommendation--Bill C-474

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 7, the Acting Speaker invited comments on whether Bill C-474 requires a royal recommendation.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that the bill's provisions to establish a new and independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who would be a new agent of Parliament would require new government spending and therefore, would require a royal recommendation.

Clause 13 of Bill C-474 would require the governor in council to appoint a new commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The clause sets out the powers, duties and term of office of the new commissioner. This would be an organizational change which would require increased spending. There are numerous precedents to this effect.

The requirement for a royal recommendation for a new agent of Parliament is made clear in the Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978, and I quote, “...if this bill is to impose a new duty on the officers of the Crown...these objectives...will necessitate expenditures of a nature which would require the financial initiative of the Crown”.

The requirement for a royal recommendation for organizational changes, such as establishing a new department or a commissioner, is referred to in the Speaker's ruling of July 11, 1988, and again I quote:

...to establish a separate Department of Government and a commissioner of Multiculturalism...undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the Federal Treasury in order for the new Department to function on a daily basis.

The Speaker's ruling of September 19, 2006 on Bill C-293 concluded that the creation of an advisory committee requires a royal recommendation since this clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. I quote from that ruling:

--the establishment of the advisory committee for international development cooperation provided for in clause 6 clearly would require the expenditure of public funds...

I believe this principle should apply to Bill C-474 since the creation of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would clearly require new spending to remunerate the commissioner and to provide administrative support to the commissioner. Although the bill does not specify these requirements, the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation would, nevertheless, be needed.

The Speaker's ruling of February 8, 2005 states:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

I would suggest this was the reason that a royal recommendation was required for the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act that established the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the Auditor General's office.

The office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has over 40 staff and reported spending $2.8 million in 2006-07 for sustainable development monitoring activities and environmental petitions. It must follow that the establishment of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would require an office of professionals to support the commissioner in carrying out his or her duties, as set out in clause 13.

Since Bill C-474 would represent a change to the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation that established the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, a new royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-474.

Page 183 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:

--an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

It is clear that by removing the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development from within the office of the auditor general and making the commissioner report directly to Parliament, Bill C-474 is proposing a change to the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation. Therefore, I submit that Bill C-474 requires a royal recommendation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.

After a replenishment of the Order of Precedence, the Chair has developed the practice of reviewing the items there so that the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to involve spending. The aim of this practice is to allow interested members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for a Royal Recommendation.

Accordingly, following the November 23 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that one bill, Bill C-474 the national sustainable development act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, gives the Chair concern as to the spending provisions it contemplates.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need of a royal recommendation in this case, that is Bill C-474, or in the case of any other bill now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

I thank the House for its attention.

It being 1:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The issue is whether your office continues in the same fashion or not. There's a green ribbon panel that is considering the issue on behalf of the Auditor General, and hasn't reported back officially, I guess.

Do you think that whoever in the future occupies the office you're in would have his or her hand strengthened by the existence of the kind of act I have described--which is contained in a nice little private member's bill, called BillC-474, that I have put forward, just by coincidence? I'm just here to help, Mr. Commissioner, you understand.

Do you think legislation with that sort of precision, indicators, and goals would strengthen your hand?

National Sustainable Development Act

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think the rather lengthy title speaks to the content of the bill. Its timing is designed to be a response to the environment commissioner's recent report on the state of sustainability reporting in the Government of Canada, which the commissioner found to be totally inadequate. I believe that this bill would go a long way in responding to that, while establishing once and for all the independence of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)