Environment Committee on March 10th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, three and a half minutes.

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

I don't want to anticipate my friend Monsieur Bigras' question, but you heard what he had to say--we have legislation, it hasn't worked, and why don't you use that legislation. Would you have some comment? I'm sure he may wish to amplify his questions, but I do think it's useful. What are the lessons of history here? What do we take away from this?

This is just to open up the questions, the trailer to the main film.

[Ron Thompson]

Let me simply say, Mr. Godfrey, that as with any government initiative--or, I would propose, any draft bill we're looking at--in a very real sense the devil's in the details. It depends what goes in the schedule. It depends what the targets are that are put forward and so on.

If it's developed in too heavy a way initially, for example, with too many requirements to involve too many people in it, one might argue that it might sink under its own weight. However, if one starts in a relatively constructive but nevertheless small and practical way and adds to it over time, one could guard against that happening.

I'm not sure I'm answering the question, Mr. Godfrey, but as I understood Mr. Bigras' interventions a while back, he was concerned about whether or not the federal government here would be mandating municipal behaviour, let alone provincial behaviour.

I guess when I look at this draft bill--and perhaps I'm looking at it incorrectly--I see the measures in the first iteration of this bill, in the annex, as federal government measures. Those are the ones that my office could assess the fairness of. And that's fair enough to do. If they were beyond that, if they were into provincial measures as well as municipal measures, certainly for the next while they'd be very difficult for me or my successor to provide any comment on, because frankly we don't audit these other levels of government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

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

I was going to ask the same question as that which my colleague, Mr. Godfrey, put to you.

In your statement, in paragraph 2, you say: “First, while I had some concerns about the bill as originally drafted [...]“

What were those concerns?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Bigras, the words that I had initially had to do with how broad the scope of the originally proposed bill would be. It seemed to sweep in all levels of government, and I wasn't sure whether the commissioner situated within the Auditor General's office or an independent commissioner could actually deal with all of that, at least not in the initial stages.

I was also concerned that a bill as broadly defined as that might not get off the ground because you'd have to get too many people involved and make too many arrangements up front that it might never get started. So that was one of the areas that worried me a bit. I tended to think it might be perhaps easier to have the bill focus on federal programs and federal measures.

Another issue that came to mind, and I gather it came to mind to colleagues around this table as well, was that there's a fundamental principle in both management and accountability, and that is, that the entity that's running the business--in this case, environmental protection or environmental sustainable development protection--would prepare a report periodically and present that for either assessment or audit or what not. You wouldn't have the auditor or the assessor, on the one hand, prepare a report and then, on the other hand, provide an assessment of whether or not it's fair.

So I've suggested that those two issues--the preparation of a report and the assessment of a report--might be better held by different entities, on the one hand by the government, on the other hand by a commissioner.

So those were two of the issues, Mr. Bigras, that I suggested we maybe could have a look at.

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

You are probably aware that Quebec has for a short while now had an environment commissioner who he too produces reports. What role could the report of the Environment Commissioner of Quebec play under the bill, if it is adopted? What would that contribution be? Would you take that into consideration, given the way the bill is drafted? Would it be for information purposes? Might the reports of the Commissioner of the Environment of Quebec be included in your audit? Would you do it? What contribution would you accept with regard to reports from Quebec if this bill is adopted?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Bigras, I know the commissioner in Quebec, Harvey Mead, and we've chatted a number of times about issues. He's just getting started, as you know.

Certainly we would be talking about issues regularly as we do our work, but the way this bill, as I understand it, would be introduced initially, the measures in here would be federal government measures. As a consequence, I wouldn't ask Mr. Mead to help me assess the fairness of the federal measures. I'd do that myself. I wouldn't ask him to help me assess the federal measures any more than he would ask me to help him assess the provincial measures.

So there's be a separation initially, for certain, Mr. Bigras.

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

If I understand correctly, in your view, the amendments that Mr. Godfrey provided to us this morning establish a distinction between... You were saying that there were too many people involved under the initial version. You rather wanted to say that there were too many levels of government involved in the initial bill. That is what I want to be absolutely certain of. These are not trick questions. It is to my mind important that these questions be put. Targets will have to be set. I see that recycling rates will be covered. In the schedule at the end of the bill, mention is even made of building sustainable cities. Listed in the concerns in this regard is urban land consumption. That is very broad.

The new version of the bill would therefore, in your opinion, eliminate the problems you had perceived initially. That is my understanding.

[Ron Thompson]

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say two things about that to Mr. Bigras and to the committee.

Make no mistake, what the initial drafters of the bill a while back were after is something that I quite believe in too, as does my office, and that is the concept of a national sustainable development strategy. This set of issues really doesn't have political boundaries, as we know. In the longer term, for sure, one would want to migrate to that. It's just that getting there from the word go might be very difficult.

The other thing I'd say and re-emphasize, Mr. Bigras, as I mentioned a bit ago, is that the devil is in the detail, sir. As I understand it, the measures set out in the appendix, some of them, at least--Mr. Godfrey, are they there?--are for illustration, as opposed to being specific measures that you'd want, necessarily, to go forward with, if I understand it correctly.

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

If you are in favour of providing a more legislative approach in view of a sustainable development strategy for Canada, would you be just as open to providing a legislative approach for the instruments of the sustainable development strategy, in other words strategic environmental assessment? Is it not the details that are important, as you were saying? Would strategic environmental assessment not therefore deserve a legislative approach?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Bigras, certainly the strategic environmental assessments are being reviewed now, as the government reviews the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and I would expect that the review would include consideration of whether they should be legislated as opposed to just being put into play through cabinet directive.

I can't really sit here and say to the committee that I think Parliament should pass this law or another law. That's up to you to decide, sir, not for me to comment upon. What I'm commenting on here is a proposal for a specific law, and I don't mind commenting on that. To tell Parliament that you should have a law to take care of SEAs I think would be overstepping what I should be saying.

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

Very well.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ascertain if Justice Canada will be appearing with regard to Bill C-474 and if its representatives will be provided with Mr. Godfrey's new amendments, in order for them to be able to comment on the new version of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Bigras, we'll see if that happens.

Are you finished?

Mr. Lussier, you have a couple of minutes.

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

Mr. Thompson, how much time did you have to react to Mr. Godfrey's amendments?

[Ron Thompson]

Well, Mr. Lussier, I've had quite a little bit, actually. I've been thinking about the Suzuki Foundation proposals for quite a while, since they came out. We looked at them last summer. I had a chat with Mr. Godfrey last summer about that. I had no idea there was going to be a bill coming out of that.

When Mr. Godfrey called and said he was going to put a bill forward, that was fine. He didn't ask me to do anything on it, but then he called--I guess it was in January--and asked whether I would have any difficulty with these other sections if we used the existing commissioner, as constituted under the AG Act. I said that I would be right over to see him. So we've been talking.

I haven't been overly rushed by it. I think we've had good chats. It sounds to me, from the discussion around the table, like many of the points I raised are points that members of this committee have raised as well.

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

To be more precise, Mr. Thompson, I would like to know for how long you have had Mr. Godfrey's latest version. Did you receive it just this week, or last week, or a month ago?

[Ron Thompson]

Well, it was this morning. Someone, I guess it was Mr. Regan, asked me if I had the final version. I think I do, but I'm not quite sure. At any rate, I have a close to final version, Mr. Lussier.

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

Very well, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Cullen.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us again today.

I'm going to use, in a sense, the report that was released last week as a basis for seeing the legitimacy or veracity of this bill. Mr. Godfrey will know that none of this is personal in terms of the concerns or criticisms.

It's around the question of the trust and confidence Canadians can have in any new creation, whether it's a piece of legislation or a structure within government. The question I put to you last week, for the benefit of the committee members who weren't here, was about accountability.

You, as auditors, have gone through the government programs and made criticisms of environmental programs in the past. They have responded by saying, yes, they would make those corrections. You then, last week, released a report on their performance on those commitments, and nine of the fourteen chapters were failures. So Canadians can be forgiven for being wary of a promise when there is no direct accountability.

When you look through this bill, what is the consequence, as it is written, to government if it fails to live up to the standards of any plan released under this type of structure, given the myriad other government commitments that have been made and then broken in this administration and previously?

[Ron Thompson]

Certainly there is a section in this bill that talks about consequences. It gets right at that issue, and I was very glad to see it.

Mr. Godfrey, what is the section of the bill that deals with consequences for not following along and implementing the strategies?

At any rate, there is a clause in here that does that, Mr. Cullen. We'll find it in a minute. It was in there this morning.

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

There's something about contracts being performance-based.

[Ron Thompson]

That's what I was getting at.

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

Let's stay with this for a moment then, because I've seen that type of language written into other pieces of legislation. When looking for direct consequences overall, one of the differences we've seen in the U.K. and other jurisdictions when they have taken an approach similar to this is that people are named in the planning, not just the political heads who are meant to shepherd something through, but those from the public service side of things, from the interdepartmental.... Thus, hopefully--and I think there has been some success to it--there's a feeling that there's some responsibility for failure.

As it is right now—and I'm not looking to you for amendments, but we'll be seeking some—my concern is to actually give that sense across government that not only is this the direction that government seeks and needs to choose, regardless of political stripe in office, but that there are direct and immediate consequences to one's career for failing, for not going across the board and making sure the thing actually happens.