Environment Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Mr. McGuinty began recognizing that he's here to ask the witness about his qualifications, so I encourage him to stay on topic.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. McGuinty, perhaps we could avoid reference to policy.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

This is not about policy; this is about how Mr. Hamilton intends to pursue his functions of the position.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, if it's a philosophical question, go ahead.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's exactly what it is. I don't understand the point of order at all.

How do you intend, Mr. Hamilton, to pursue new thinking around environmental economics, natural capitalism, monetizing equal services? How is it you see getting these central agencies, which have been for decades, under every government, extremely resistant to rethinking, for example, how we measure and report on wealth in this country?

Let me give you one example that you can draw on. When I was in a previous life at the national round table, we gave to the Department of Finance five or six key indicators that could be used alongside classical economic reports, like GDP up, GDP down, unemployment up, inflation is X or Y. We actually developed a couple of natural capital indicators to start reporting to Canadians on wealth, which heretofore remains outside the traditional economic thinking in terms of how we measure our wealth as a nation state. Can you give me some idea, after 25 years in Finance--which I think is your greatest asset to bring to this job, in my estimation--of how you see that going forward?

[Bob Hamilton]

It's difficult to know exactly how it's going to go forward. I certainly should state at the outset that I don't necessarily agree that the Department of Finance has been a significant blockage to creative thinking in previous years.

My approach to it is that I look at this area and the interaction of the economy and the environment, and it does seem like an area that is evolving. People are taking new approaches to thinking about exactly how we analyze the implications of our actions and how we measure those, because some of the issues you raised are difficult issues to measure. For example, even if one could agree that you wanted to measure them, they're difficult to bring into some of the standard practices that we have of how we measure wealth, accounting practices, etc. So it's new, it's novel, it's certainly not easy. But I think what I've seen in some of the work that's been done around...it is both doing work within the existing boundaries, obviously, because that's the way we understand it and best explain it to others, and some willingness to think that we really don't know all the answers yet in terms of how we best analyze some of these issues, how we measure and report them, and how we factor them into our policy thinking, which at the end of the day is the important factor. Whether we can measure it or not, if we can accept that this is a way of thinking about the implications of actions, then that can help drive our frameworks for assessing them.

So I guess if you ask what my approach would be, I think I've shown--despite the fact that I've been from the Department of Finance--an ability to try to think of issues in a creative way and in an all-encompassing way, to try to think of all the different angles. Yes, we often use the structures and frameworks that are most common to us. And I would apply this to the Department of Finance more generally. It has really shown an ability to take these complex issues and think about them in different ways. I think this is an area--and there are others--where I look and say the state of economic thinking is actually starting to move and people are trying to integrate different ideas into their analyses and outputs.

I'm open to those, and I will certainly try to encourage at the Department of the Environment that we are open to them in our thinking.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. McGuinty, your time is up. Sorry.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's it? That's too bad.

I shouldn't have been interrupted. Did you take off the time for that?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I did, in fact.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

All right. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hamilton, congratulations on your recent appointment. Welcome to the committee this morning, and thank you very much for your time.

Having worked in the federal public service myself for a number of years, unlike some of my friends from across the way, it's not a revelation to me that senior leaders move from department to department within the federal government.

It's clear that you have very strong skills from Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat. I'm certain that those will be very well applied at the Department of the Environment.

I'm just curious to know, and perhaps this is a bit of a philosophical question as well, could you speak a little bit about what you would like to achieve or hope to achieve personally from either a leadership or a policy perspective in your new role?

[Bob Hamilton]

That's an interesting question. I guess that's the other side of the coin of what can I bring to the department, which we've talked about, but also, what do I hope to gain by being part of it?

I have demonstrated skills in the policy area of leadership, and so on, through my past work at Finance and Treasury Board. I'd certainly still hope to improve those. In terms of my ability to lead people, I am now not just responsible for our branch, but I'm helping, through the deputy, to manager a department—and a diverse department.

To be honest, I've spent the bulk of my career, almost all of it, in central agencies, in Finance. Finance does not have regional offices across the country, so it was more difficult—although I did it—to try to get out and get regional perspectives. But Environment Canada is a more diverse department that way, spread out across the country. It's a bigger department. It's not just a policy shop; it has a science dimension, as we've talked about, and enforcement. It has a different scope from the Department of Finance or Treasury Board. Obviously the Department of Finance has a country-wide scope as well.

So I hope to learn a little bit about what it's like to manage—or help manage, in my case—a diverse department like that. I think that will help me as I progress forward to build the central agency policy skills that I've developed with some of those real practical realities of what it's like to manage a department like this.

Frankly, the other thing is that, as a public servant, I've always enjoyed being involved in interesting files. They're challenging, and that's what I like, whether it was introducing the GST or some of the other tax issues that I've been involved in. I see this as a really interesting time in the environment and in terms of the opportunity to try to help as we think through environmental policy and what that means for energy policy and the economy at a time that is perhaps unprecedented, at least for a number of years, in terms of what's happening out there in the economy. It's a real personal challenge to meet that and try to grow from it. Plus, it gives me a great opportunity to work with terrific people, because they tend to gravitate towards these files.

Those are the kinds of things that I would hope to take out of my time at Environment, and obviously contribute in the many ways that I've talked about earlier.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Hamilton, you told us just now that you do not have a clearly defined mandate, in fact no mandate other than being the Minister's right-hand person. So you have considerable latitude.

As an economist, do you think you have the competence needed to really advise the Minister on climate change or to listen to the people around you? You have to be able to understand not only the economic aspect, but also the environmental aspect of issues.

At present, the economy is still the big predator. It is constantly preying on the environment. You are an economist, and only an economist, and I have to admit that scares me a little. To be an economist and an environmentalist, one has to achieve a certain balance, but that does not seem to be your case.

What competence do you think you have to develop immediately in order to be able to understand, when people talk to you about climate change, more than just the economic aspect?

[Bob Hamilton]

That is certainly a challenge for a senior official in the public service. It is necessary to understand one's own area of expertise, but also other people's. It is important to listen to them and to understand and incorporate their arguments in relation to the economy and the environment, for example. I am a member of a good team made up of people with diverse expertise.

I am not an expert, or a lawyer, or an accountant in the tax policy field. So it is necessary for me to work with people who have competence in the issue, who will provide certain details and point out other perspectives.

I am not a scientist with a lot of technical knowledge about the environment, but I think I am capable of recognizing the experience of the other members of the team, be they economists, lawyers, physicians or others, and incorporating their advice into mine. That is necessary for a senior public servant. It is impossible to be an expert in all fields.

I have to acknowledge that this will certainly be a challenge. But I am certain that I am capable of assisting the other team members. I am not the only one who will be advising the Minister. Rather, there will be advice coming from a team with a range of experience.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Because I have only five minutes, I would like to give you an example and then you can comment on it.

About 25 years ago, we tried to get windmills going. Nobody wanted the government to get involved in windmills, because the economists—and only the economists—said that it wasn't viable. The arguments were based solely on economic non-viability. The fact that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions was hushed up.

What might cause you to adopt a different approach? You have talked about listening. Other than listening, are you going to adopt a different approach to a new technology you are not familiar with, but that open-minded people are advising you to move toward, even if it is not economically viable at the moment?

[Bob Hamilton]

I think I am fully capable of understanding both an economic argument and a non-economic argument, and understanding that it is certainly necessary to take action that will have a non-economic benefit. Are there any guarantees? I can offer no guarantees at this point, but I think I am very open and I listen carefully to advice and opinions from other people in another field, for example from a lawyer or a physician.

I have to give good advice, and to do that it is necessary to assemble all the expert advice in certain fields and strike a balance between the economic arguments and the other arguments. I am entirely capable of doing that. Certainly I am an economist, so I am more comfortable with economic arguments and analyses. I know that economic arguments represent an important perspective in any given field, but I understand that there are others. We have to listen to the advice coming from other experts. I think I am fully capable of doing that in performing the duties of my position.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We will move on to Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on your management style, and on how that fits with the current responsibilities you've been assigned.

[Bob Hamilton]

In terms of management style, I mentioned earlier a couple of matters.

One is that I think I'm definitely a conscientious manager who tries to attract good people around to work on files and to keep them there, making an environment that is attractive for those people to work in. I think I'm a relatively easy person to work with. I may be demanding at times, in terms of the analysis that I demand from people, but they understand where I'm coming from.

I think I've always been able to build a good team around me. I've been fortunate to have good issues to work on, but I feel that as a good manager of people, I can get things done, I can stay focused. I'm an organized person, and I think that contributes to a good workplace.

I think I'm a leader of people as well. I can demonstrate through my actions a commitment to providing solid public policy advice for which we can all hold our heads high and feel that we've done the right thing, being proud of what we do and of having acted with integrity. I try to lead in that way and make sure that I demonstrate to the people who work for me that we need to carry ourselves in a totally professional manner; we need to show respect to the people we work with and the people we interact with, whether in consultation with outside groups or what have you.

Those are the key things.

And I think I'm a good listener. We talked earlier about listening to other people from other disciplines. I like to think I'm a very good team manager, in a sense: I'll listen to what everybody has to say. At the end of the day we have to make decisions, and not everybody can agree, but I like to hear all the perspectives on an issue before I think about what my advice would be going forward.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

It's very important not to be a know-it-all.

[Bob Hamilton]

I'm far from that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I appreciate your perspective on learning.

So I've heard what your management style is. Can you illustrate from past experience how you've actually fulfilled it? I'd be interested in whether you can give us some examples of where you have led with that kind of style or what type of project you have tackled in which you've done something with a team. Can you illustrate, so that we know this isn't just aspirational? I want to be assured that you've actually done this before in some other capacity.