Environment Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Martin, I have questions for you. Thank you for your presentation. I found it very interesting.

I believe you broke your presentation into three themes—first of all, that the government has agreed with the last report from the commissioner on sustainable development and that we are doing a review department by department. You said that the review is currently under way. It has several areas of focus, including examining options for a strengthened framework or overall strategy with clear goals and indicators. You're confident that this work will be completed by the October deadline set by the commissioner. So governments agreed with that, and that's ongoing.

At the same time, we have Bill C-474, which is a bill on sustainable development. Are you suggesting that Bill C-474 may be duplicating some of the work that's already being done, or is it not addressing what needs to be addressed?

[Michael Martin]

Mr. Chairman, I was simply seeking to clarify for the committee what the government is doing currently as it relates to the renewal of sustainable development strategies. I wasn't commenting specifically, in that section, on Bill C-474.

With respect to Bill C-474, I just noted two questions that I would have if it fell to my department to implement the bill as a practical matter.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, thank you.

I want to address the issue you brought up about “national” as opposed to “federal”. I think you brought up a very interesting point. You said that as a practical matter, if we expect it to be a “national” sustainable development strategy, we should be consulting the provinces.

I'll next be asking about the list on the schedule, and there are a number of issues or substances that deal with provincial jurisdiction, as brought to our attention by Mr. Bigras.

But there hasn't been any consultation in this process. If this is a “national” plan, there was no consultation with the environment ministers. I think the commissioner's report and what we're doing in the study or review deal with the federal departments and therefore could be a “federal” sustainable strategy as opposed to a “national” one.

Could you elaborate a little bit on that? I think it's a very interesting point. Maybe we should not be calling it a “national” but should be calling it a “federal” strategy.

[Michael Martin]

Being precise in the terms will be important in relation to the instruments that are then required, under the bill, to be used. As you've suggested, the fact that the bill requires the minister to make regulation in a very wide range of areas that are listed in column 2 of the schedule would raise the question about how successfully we would be able to develop and implement that regulation, both in terms of its scope and also in terms of the specific items.

I imagine that would depend on the specific items, because the list is quite long, and there's quite a range of specific items laid out in it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I used my highlighter to a great extent as I listened to your speech. You went on to say that the commissioner has been very clear, that defining measurable goals and developing performance indicators are essential to any effective sustainable development strategy. These things have not been done on Bill C-474.

We asked that: has there been an analysis done on this bill? We were told no. Mr. Sadik said no, there had not been an analysis done. So Bill C-474 is not involving the provinces to this point, and no analysis has been done.

That paragraph is indicating that there is a big problem with not defining measurable goals and having no performance indicators built into this bill. Is that the point you're making?

[Michael Martin]

I'm simply reading the text of the bill. As I understand it, the goals would be established: there would be a schedule, and then it would fall to the minister within two years to return to the House and table a national sustainable development strategy, with targets in each area, and then within 30 days of that make regulations.

The question of how effectively this could be done is simply a question that comes to my mind in reading the bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How much time do I have, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have three minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Good, let's go to the schedule.

I'm looking at the schedule, and I actually compared it with the schedule listed in Toward a National Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada, presented by the David Suzuki Foundation. It's a very interesting document, but word for word, it's exactly the same schedule.

So there are short-, medium-, and long-term requirements in this. And as you pointed out, within a very short period of time there would have to be a cost-benefit analysis done of this. We're talking of over 400 substances, when you include the national pollutant release inventory. It's a huge amount of work, with a broad range of issues, from livestock density to turbidity and automobile dependence. As was pointed out recently by my colleague, municipal waste is there, as are nuclear waste, neurotoxins, and carbon monoxide emissions. So it's very broad. And when you include the pollutant release inventory, it's over 400 substances. But there was no analysis done, no rationale for why it's this particular list or requirement, or why these are the issues that should be on this list. From previous witnesses, we've heard that it would be much more practical to have a small list, instead of this broad, all-encompassing list.

Does the department have the resources to meet what the bill is requiring? And is it realistic to come up with regulations in that short period of time without consultation with the provinces? It seems like an impossible and unrealistic task to do what's being asked for in Bill C-474.

[Michael Martin]

I don't wish to speculate on the intent of the drafters of the bill. I'm merely saying that if indeed it were the case that the bill would require the use of the regulatory tool for each target, and if indeed it were to be as extensive as currently suggested, yes, I think that would be extremely difficult to achieve, based on our experience in making regulations in accordance with the existing statutory framework.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

What would be the logistical and financial implications of trying to meet these many substances in a short period of time?

[Michael Martin]

We obviously have not done that analysis, but it would be very significant. The committee may wish to examine the experience with the development of a single environmental regulation. It normally takes some years, depending on its complexity and on the requirement for consultation, not only with the provinces, but also, of course, with industry and other stakeholders.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I think what we're seeing is a rush to complete Bill C-474, and the reality is that much more thought needs to go into it and a lot more consultation, particularly with the provinces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll go to the second round. I have Mr. Regan, Mr. Vellacott, and Mr. Bigras.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, how long was the time in the first round? You started off saying three minutes in total for each of us, and then you had three additional minutes; so I must have had ten or something like. I don't think we had ten minutes originally.

I'm not clear how this works right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, you actually went short in your first round.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

But you talked about three minutes each, so I wanted to be short.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, I tried to do that for the minister, because he had to leave in 30 minutes—and of course we kept him a bit longer. Then we went back to the first round and basically allowed ten minutes per person. That's why I asked Mr. Silva if he had any additional questions. So it was basically for three minutes and ten minutes.

I apologize. It hasn't necessarily been that smooth with the minister leaving.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

How long is this round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

This round should be for five minutes each. I'll certainly make sure you have enough time.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay, thank you very much. I don't know what's up.

Let me ask you, Mr. Martin, first of all, if you consider the provinces to be one of the department's stakeholders—that is, the provincial governments.

[Michael Martin]

Most certainly.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The bill says in subclause 8(3):

(3) The Minister shall submit a draft of the National Sustainable Development Strategy to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, the Commissioner, the relevant Parliamentary committees, the relevant stakeholders and the public for review and comment...

Then it talks about the consultation period of a first draft, rather than the final document. That surely would include the provinces, would it not?

[Michael Martin]

I would think it would need to.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

In your view, does developing measurable goals and performance indicators have anything to do with costing?