Environment Committee on April 30th, 2008

[Robert Smith]

Well, maybe I'll answer the last question first.

Would we be willing to look at something like the economic impacts of biofuels or the environmental impacts as best we could? If asked to do so, certainly we would. Within the limits of the statistics that we have at hand, we would be happy to do that sort of thing.

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

Does government ask you to do that? Does this committee?

[Robert Smith]

I have not been asked to do so on that particular issue.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I just don't understand the mechanism. Can the committee ask Statistics Canada to look at that, or do these requests usually come from government?

[Robert Smith]

The requests come from a variety of stakeholders. There's no particular.... Most of them would come from stakeholders, but there are requests from elsewhere as well.

In terms of how we work with Environment Canada, I think we work quite closely with Environment Canada in a whole bunch of different ways. I don't have time to explain all of them, but suffice it to say that we do work closely with them.

Obviously the kind of thing we look to Environment Canada for is direction on what is important to collect, as we don't want to be the ones deciding what's important to collect. We're happy to collect what policy-makers think is important. That's how we look to departments like Environment Canada to help set that agenda in terms of what needs to be collected in terms of environmental information.

And we've done that by using various mechanisms. I've been at it now for 15 years, and at various points during those 15 years we've had fairly intensive discussions on what needs to be collected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I also want to thank the witnesses for being here. It's been a very interesting discussion.

The first question is for Mr. Mitchell. Are you here representing Sussex Circle, or are you here with the green ribbon panel, or as an individual?

[James Mitchell]

I'm here as an individual, sir.

[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?

[James Mitchell]

Shall I start, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Mitchell.

[James Mitchell]

In response to the member's question, I have enormous respect for the author of the bill, so I hope the record will show that, but I can offer the following comments.

First of all, I'm not sure this bill works with the definition of a sustainable development strategy that I would use. It seems to be more like a strategy for addressing significant environmental problems, which to my mind is a different thing from an SDS as I've always understood it. So I think the first thing the committee might want to think about is, are you working with a definition of an SDS that, in your view, is the right one?

The second point is that, as I mentioned, I'm personally not keen on Parliament legislating how the cabinet system works, so I'm not sure you need that. In fact, I would advise against it. I don't see anything wrong with insisting that there should be a national sustainable development strategy; let me be clear on that. So I think the basic intent of the bill is one that I would personally support.

The third point—and I think the chair mentioned this—is that I'm actually not keen on an “independent commissioner”. That's a separate issue, but I gather that's off the table, so I won't say anything about that.

Briefly, with respect to what a federal sustainable development strategy should have, I don't think it should be a comprehensive plan for the whole government's activities, as I think Mr. Meadowcroft said. You need to select what it's going to deal with. It has to deal with major objectives and issues of the government, much more like the kinds of things you see in a Speech from the Throne or in the major features of a budget, rather than a plan for running the whole government. It can't include everything. That's the first thing.

Secondly, I think it needs to talk about objectives and how you're going to measure performance against those objectives.

Thirdly, it should create a document that gives useful guidance to individual departments and agencies so that they can hook their activities, or their major activities, into that major strategy.

Then finally, I think it should talk to some extent about standards and goals against which you can measure the performance of the government in fulfilling the objectives of the SDS that you've set out in your bill.

Keep it simple, have the right form of SDS, talk about meaningful goals, and then hold the government to account for meeting those objectives.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Is there time for Mr. Meadowcroft?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Meadowcroft.

[Dr. James Meadowcroft]

Yes, I actually agree with most of those points. I think the basic intent of the bill is very valuable, because Canada has talked about having a national strategy for a long time, but nothing has been forthcoming.

I think you asked whether the problem is the mechanisms or something else, the political will or whatever. Both have been problems, but I definitely think the mechanism, as it exists so far, is flawed because each department, kind of in isolation, develops its strategy. You need an overarching vision.

If you're talking about an actual strategy, the point about having a handful of key strategic priorities is absolutely critical. If one looks at the international experience of these strategies, the ones that have been pretty useless are ones that have tried to integrate every single thing a government could ever do on the basis that “Oh, we're trying to integrate everything”. So you say everything. You say down to—not quite—“reduce the rate of parking offences in the city” or something like that.

What you want is a strategy. That means saying that three, four, or five issues are absolutely strategic if we want to get Canada on track. That means taking the political choices: climate change, water, soil erosion, or whatever they are. I think that's really fundamental. But the absence of that means that some departments do well, as you said, and others don't do well. But there's no overarching countrywide vision.

One other thing I would say is that the question of engagement with other jurisdictions is very important in the Canadian context. That has to be handled in this bill in a way that will build consensus and a cooperation between governments, and not encourage bickering like “somebody's sticking their finger into my jurisdiction” or “keep your finger out, because that's my jurisdiction”.

Now, this is just a throwaway comment, but because I lived in Europe for a long time, I watched the gradual evolution of the European Union environmental policy, where the union is taking an increasingly active role. I have to say that in some respects the independent countries of the EU achieve better cooperation on some environmental issues than Canada does with its federal government and its diverse provincial governments. One concrete example is on climate change. With the burden-sharing agreement that the EU worked out way back when at Kyoto, which divided targets so the enthusiastic countries took big targets and countries that didn't care, like Spain, basically got a growth target, that political agreement that will share the burden allowed them to achieve a lot--not perfectly, but a lot. But in Canada—where, for all sorts of historic reasons you all know about, it didn't work out—in fact you couldn't move forward because everybody was in their own corner.

I just think that issue is important in the actual wording of the bill, that it be done in such a way as to draw in the other key actors. On the other hand, you don't want to set it up so that if one actor says, “No, we don't want to join”, then nothing can go. So it's delicate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excellent. Go ahead.

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

Thanks very much, all of you. Half the time I want to argue with you, but the other half I want to praise you.

Let me just make one point with Mr. Mitchell and then move on to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Mitchell's point was, if I understand the argument, be careful about using an act of Parliament to establish a machinery of government piece, whether it's a cabinet committee or a central agency, because the challenge is that you're getting into the kitchen, you're limiting flexibility, and you're binding on successors. Is that roughly the caveat?

[James Mitchell]

Yes, sir.

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

Then my only problem with that is that we actually have a great example of an act of Parliament that established a central agency that was binding on successors. It's called the Treasury Board. In other words, that was not a decision by the Prime Minister of the day—it may have been in the sense that it was a cabinet decision—but it is binding on all. I think we would agree that things that go on, that make things more accountable, such as Treasury Board or the Auditor General, are useful devices to constrain governments. Acts of Parliament created both those things: Auditor General and Treasury Board.

[James Mitchell]

Can I quickly respond, Mr. Godfrey?

That's absolutely right, and in making my comments I was conscious of the FAA amendments that created the Treasury Board, the fact that Treasury Board is a statutory committee. Perhaps I should better say that if you're going to do something that's as fundamental as creating an environmental counterpart to the Treasury Board, or a sustainable development counterpart to the Treasury Board, I would rather that it were a government bill introduced after long deliberation and careful consultation with all parties in the House. If you're talking about the fundamental governance of the nation, I wouldn't like to see something that was simply imposed on a government in a private member's bill. I'm saying that with the greatest respect to private members and to this committee, of course, but we're talking about very fundamental change to the way government business is conducted.

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

So the whole point of the bill, of course, is that it tells the government to do exactly that. It does not dictate in detail, but it does say you have to have this piece of machinery to get on.

My questions for Mr. Smith are the following.

The bill actually is in two parts. Part of it is the national portrait--what does our situation look like?--and the other part is, how are federal government agencies and departments doing? They're interrelated, but they're distinct. I'm interested in Mr. Smith's point of view in the former.

Mr. Smith, in terms of national portraits on subjects that notionally have to do with things that are exclusively or largely in provincial jurisdiction, such as justice, education, and health, does Statistics Canada roll up a national portrait even if they're in the domain of provinces--with the cooperation of provinces, of course?

[Robert Smith]

Statistics Canada produces statistics across a whole lot of issues that are important to provinces and important to the federal government. The three you mentioned are relevant, but you could think of all of the economic statistics. You could think of.... Well, it's hard to think of something Statistics Canada does that is of interest only to the federal government. I'm not sure if I could think of anything. So much of the power in the Canadian Confederation is shared that it's hard to find issues that are really only of interest to the federal government.

I don't have much more to say in response to your question other than that.

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

I'm very happy with that answer. You can stop right there.

My final question is this. The bill as written or indeed amended has with it, of course, a schedule that is suggestive of things that a sustainable development plan over the years-- long-term, short-term, medium-type--might want to take into account, but by no means is it exhaustive, iterative, whatever you say. Can you see a role for Statistics Canada in supporting the kinds of ambitions in terms of the national portrait? Could Statistics Canada support this bill as written, with its aspirations and the kinds of indicators it's looking at, by leveraging the work you're currently doing in the direction where you hope to go?

[Robert Smith]

I don't want to get anywhere close to commenting on the bill itself and whether we could support those particular indicators or any other set of indicators.

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

But that kind of work...?