Evidence of meeting #28 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 provincial.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
Absolutely, the executive.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So in a sense, is the effort then to make the Prime Minister the Minister of the Environment?
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
No. If anything, it would be to make the Prime Minister the Minister of Sustainable Development, which is much broader. The environment is a crucial part of it, but it's the activities and decisions taken in the agriculture, energy, mineral, and fisheries departments and others that have these huge environmental consequences you're speaking of.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just one point of clarification here, Mr. Toner. In your testimony you talked about these early peer-reviewed reports. You mentioned the early 1990s, and then later you said 2000 and 2001. Which were you referring to?
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
I made a mistake there. In fact, those state of the environment reports I made reference to were a victim of program review cuts.
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
I think they were in 1987, 1990, and 1993.
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
They were cut in 1995-96, regrettably.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, Mr. Sadik, I'm trying to understand the implications of this bill through a current-day lens, if it were to exist today. Given the time, I'm not sure I got a sufficient answer. A project like the northern Alberta tar sands development project, how would it look if this bill were law? Would it have been different? Would it have cast the hand of government differently?
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
I think we'd have a situation where.... We don't have an energy policy in this country.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
We would have looked at the tar sands, the oil sands, through the lens of a responsible energy policy, through the lens of sustainable development, with an assessment of the costs and benefits to Canadians today and future generations of Canadians.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
I can't say. A good bit of political will would have been and always will be needed. If the will wasn't there to do the project, or if the will was there to do the project regardless, the project probably would have gone ahead anyway. This is not a panacea, but this bill will make it more difficult for our leaders to step back from their responsibility to Canadians around the environment. Let's put it that way.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
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?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Year after year, we'd been seeing the same Environment Commissioner reports that Glen talked about earlier. We'd seen the same critiques of the previous government and are seeing some of the same critiques of this government, around the dysfunctionality of the departmental SDS, sustainable development strategy system. So Dr. Tom Gunton and I decided that instead of just critiquing, it might be good to show where the gaps are and offer some solutions to the Canadian government around sustainable development.
In December 2006 we released this report, Toward a National Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada. Dr. Gunton and I drafted a model act that was appended to it. As I say, that was released in late 2006. I went around and spoke to various folks on the Hill about it. Then in the spring of 2000 the NDP member introduced essentially our model act as a private member's bill. Mr. Julian, I believe, was up later on the turn for private members' bills in the House, then Mr. Godfrey. Mr. Godfrey introduced it, I guess, in the late summer or fall of 2007, and of course came to the foundation to ask for some advice on how to structure the bill.
As I like to put it, we are like an open-source software; we provide advice to everyone and anyone. Seeing our proposals and our solutions implemented is the raison d'être of the David Suzuki Foundation, so we were happy to see such interest in this bill.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
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?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
It's a bill that has now been substantially amended from the model legislation in the report we released in late 2006. As for bringing it to the House, I don't want to take too much credit, but whenever I was asked to help, I helped.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
After second reading, the Speaker said the bill, as originally presented by Mr. Godfrey, would require a royal recommendation. Mr. Godfrey and I worked together, and I found the discussions interesting and fruitful. Have you been involved with proposed amendments to the first draft, which would require a royal recommendation? Have you been involved with this also?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Absolutely. Whenever I was asked for help, I tried to offer whatever assistance I could.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
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?
4:35 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
I'm scratching my head about that. Maybe it has something to do with the release of our report and model legislation in late 2006. However, I can't really say why the Liberals, the previous government, did not follow through on the commitments they made on the international stage.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
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?
