Environment Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Michael Martin]

It should. We should have, in developing any goal, some sense of the costs and we should be thinking of doing some analysis to support that if we expect to achieve a measurable outcome.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In determining the measurable goals and performance indicators you're choosing for a strategy, you would develop that kind of costing. Is that correct?

[Michael Martin]

I think we would need to do that kind of analysis, yes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay.

The commissioner asked for measurable targets and performance indicators. Don't you think the bill does that?

[Michael Martin]

I think the bill is actually very prescriptive, yes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I talked about subclause 8(3). Not only among the stakeholders but also on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council there are representatives of the provinces, are there not?

[Michael Martin]

As I read the bill, that's my understanding. The suggestion is that there could be provincial involvement, yes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you. Those are my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciated your written presentation, Mr. Martin.

I want to follow up on a few things. You infer that provincial consultations would be pretty necessary. You say:

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.

There have been questions that have touched on that a bit already, but how long are you talking about for the kind of consultation you're inferring here? You have “extensive meetings required over a period of time”. What length of process are you looking at there?

[Michael Martin]

As I mentioned, we do have machinery in place to facilitate consultation with the provinces at a number of levels, most importantly the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We have a work program in that organization that is technical, particularly, but does extend to some very important issues. For example, we are currently working with the provinces through CCME on the development of a strategy on municipal waste water in Canada. That is both a policy process that has required ministerial involvement, and it's also a technical process in its development and design. And it has an economic dimension in terms of the assessment of the costs of implementing such a strategy.

It has taken some time. We have been working on it for some years. So I think the challenge is simply, in any particular area, the amount of time we would be allotted for consultation. If the bill were to provide a specific time we had to develop a strategy, I'm sure we would meet the requirements of the bill. But it may constrain our ability to consult to the extent that may satisfy everyone involved. I guess I could say that.

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

Since you're inferring here that a pretty extensive and full consultation back and forth requires to have the proper implementation, I guess the rub is if you constrain it too much, or you have it too circumscribed, you don't have willing partners in terms of the implementation.

[Michael Martin]

Right. And it would also depend on the areas of engagement. Because we collaborate with the provinces in defining the appropriate roles for provincial action and for federal action in any area at any point in time, it is quite important to try to have some understanding of the goals we're seeking to achieve in the areas where such intervention, particularly federal intervention, would add value and would help to improve environmental outcomes.

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

You talked about the schedule of items and some of the areas to be regulated being affected by Bill C-474--at the end of the bill, the ten goals, roughly hundreds of affected areas. It's fairly broad. It seems to me that could be quite a costly thing. I'm not the one to do the actual calculation at this point, but when you have those ten fairly broad overarching goals, hundreds of affected areas....

I guess the question would be, in your humble and neutral, non-partisan opinion, is there a fair bit of expense? Is it a rather costly exercise with all the schedules that we have, the goals, and the affected areas? Is the bill maybe attempting to take on too much? Is it rather too broad in terms of the ambition of the bill itself?

[Michael Martin]

It's not for me to say whether the bill is too ambitious or too broad. I'm simply looking at the schedule, which is a long list, and then what I understand to be the requirements of the bill in relation to the schedule. If the requirement is for us to make regulations in each of these areas, then it is a very extensive undertaking, absolutely.

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

Did you say extensive or expensive?

[Michael Martin]

I said extensive.

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

Would you agree that it's also very expensive?

[Michael Martin]

It would certainly have a cost, and I imagine it would be significant, yes.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

We'll now go to Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would not want to add to the questions asked by the members of the government, but I would like to come back to subclause 8(3) of the bill. I would like to understand how you interpret it. The subclause reads as follows:

(3) The Minister shall submit a draft of the National Sustainable Development Strategy to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council [...]”

In your view, do the provinces have 120 days to submit their comments and conduct a review? Is that your interpretation of clause 8? I presume, as my colleague Mr. Regan said, that the provinces are the relevant stakeholders. Therefore, would the provinces be put on the same footing as the Sustainable Development Advisory Council? Is that how I should interpret this?

[Michael Martin]

In fairness, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as I read it--and I don't pretend to have mastered all its clauses--is not specific in how it would engage the provinces if indeed the assumption is that subclause 8(3) implies that the provinces would be engaged at that stage only. Then, as I read it, it would suggest that they would be subject to that period of comment, which would not be less than 120 days.

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

That answers my first question on federal-provincial matters, because I think I have heard enough so far.

I would like to come back to the federal sustainable development strategy. I noted that Agriculture and Agri-food Canada has a 2007-2009 sustainable development strategy. If I may, I would like to quote one sentence from the summary:

In the context of Canadian agriculture and agri-food production, sustainable development means producing, processing, and distributing agricultural products...

Do you think that strategic sustainable environmental assessments are part of a federal sustainable development strategy?

Furthermore, are you familiar with Bill C-33, which is intended to ensure that ethanol will make up 5% of all gasoline sold by 2020? Has Bill C-33 been the subject of a strategic environmental assessment? As the person responsible for sustainable development at the environment department, can you tell me whether a strategic environmental assessment was conducted and, if so, can you submit that strategic assessment to the environment committee?

[Michael Martin]

The directive on strategic environmental assessment is administered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and by the Privy Council Office. Since 1990, as you know, major government initiatives, proposals, are subject to a strategic environmental assessment. And Bill C-33--