Evidence of meeting #21 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was departments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Thompson, I want to go back to the strategic environmental assessment questions you had earlier.
I think you mentioned DFO and Transport. Was it DFO and Transport, in particular? You referenced them in terms of may or may not have--
4:25 p.m.
Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, that was on the aquatic invasive species.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Perhaps you could refresh my memory. In your report, do you single out a department or agency or commission with respect to not having sufficiently conducted strategic environmental assessment?
4:25 p.m.
Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Well, we've looked at a number of them. We've looked at 15 departments, Mr. McGuinty, in this particular chapter, chapter 9.
Health, I'm told, is a good example of a department that did not do things well, and you would have expected them to.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Our government brought in strategic environmental assessment as a cabinet decree, if I recall. Is that correct?
4:25 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
A cabinet directive in 1990...so it was probably a Conservative--
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, you did it in 1999 and in 2004.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm sorry, the previous government did what in 1999 and 2004?
4:25 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
In 1999 it was renewed, and it was renewed again in 2004. The original one was in 1990.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
It was the Progressive Conservatives. The Progressive Conservatives did that.
4:25 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
The big change was in the last version--a transparency--to make a summary of strategic environmental assessment, to make them public. When we audited this, the application was not as great.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I haven't looked at strategic environmental assessments in a long time and how they are conducted. Do we actually know how to conduct these things?
4:25 p.m.
Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Let me just jump in here, and I might get my colleague Mary Anne Strong to comment if she wishes.
There are some good things that have happened in that area, on that file. It's not all bad, even though the system isn't working the way it should. There have been some courses developed and given to departments on how to conduct these things. There is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which is sitting there ready to help departments do these things and do them well.
So in terms of those two findings from this chapter, Mr. McGuinty, I would say there are people within the federal government who indeed do know how to do these things.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
In your examination of Health Canada and 15 other line departments, is there a discernable nomenclature? Is there an established practice?
It reminds me of the difficulty people have with cumulative environmental assessments. I spent three years on projects in the Northwest Territories, looking at, for example, the rapid exploitation of non-renewable resources. There's always a large clamour—and an important one—for the conducting of cumulative environmental assessment processes to look at, for example, overall caring capacity on sensitive tundra. But as a former practising lawyer, I always look for the “how”.
In your 15 departments looking at strategic environmental assessments, is there a nomenclature? If we were to point to a web page or go to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, would we find a widely accepted methodology for conducting strategic environmental assessments pursuant to this cabinet decree?
4:30 p.m.
Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Before I ask Mary Anne Strong to comment, I'd like to say this. One of the frustrations in this chapter, Mr. McGuinty, as we look at what I think is a very important issue, is that departments have from time to time put in place management structures and systems to do these things. They just haven't exercised them, and that's the frustration.
Is there a nomenclature, a way of doing this, Mary Anne?
4:30 p.m.
Mary Anne Strong Project Leader, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
There are guidelines that were put in place in 2004 by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and PCO. But they're voluntary guidelines. This is a self-assessment process. It's up to each department and agency to define, first of all, the nature of an important environmental effect. They define this for themselves.
Each department has its own method of doing strategic environmental assessments. We found that many are slipping through the cracks. We did not look at each proposal in detail, nor did we look at the quality of the assessments themselves. What we can say is that CIDA, for example, has done at least 89 strategic environmental assessments. Some were 100 pages long. Other departments are doing strategic environmental assessments that might be a paragraph long.
4:30 p.m.
Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I don't mean to hog the floor, but I would like to provide an overall comment on this report. I've been saying it outside the committee, and I'd better say it to the committee as well.
To me, in this report of 14 chapters there are four basic messages. It's certainly not all bad news.
The first message is, where there's a will there's a way. There's a lot of good activity that we've identified in this report over five chapters, and I think people should realize that.
Secondly, in other chapters there's been, as we put it in the press the other day, probably far too much talk and far too little action. Why that's the case, I don't know, but I think Parliament needs to get to the bottom of it.
The third message is that some of the fundamental tools of good environmental management are broken. I'm talking about SDSs, SEAs, and the absence of an overarching strategy or plan.
The fourth message is, now is a great time to take a look at this, to take stock of where we are, to look forward and encourage the government to get on with the task.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. That's a good way to end.
We want to thank you for a comprehensive and thorough report. I know the committee will think about how we're going to deal with this and take your advice into account.
Thank you.
I believe Mr. Cullen has agreement on a motion, so I will excuse our guests.
Mr. Cullen.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There's been discussion within all the parties that we'd like to move to the subcommittee and invite the parliamentary secretary to become part of this conversation about the calendar.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is this a permanent position, Mr. Cullen? I think we should make that clear.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let's discuss it in subcommittee. Right now let's make it temporary and then move to discussion from there.