Environment Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

You mentioned at the outset that the department is interested in looking at approaches taken by other jurisdictions and so forth. I'm wondering if you will possibly be involved in the department's role in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation or in the department's role with the CCME? Are you foreseeing that the department might be examining the use of these other mechanisms, particularly when it's seeking a dialogue in an energy environment with the United States?

[Bob Hamilton]

I don't know what my particular role will be on those. I do know that even in my short time here I've seen that in moving forward and making progress on the environmental files one very quickly finds out that you have to have a very intensive dialogue with not only stakeholders, whether it's businesses, NGOs, whoever, but also with other jurisdictions. By that, I would include those outside of Canada and within Canada.

So nothing has been specifically identified, as far as I'm aware of, that I'll be involved in with CEC or CCME, other than the fact that since I've been here we have actually had a CCME meeting, and I was involved in the preparation for that, not in a direct and central way. It was interesting to see the range of issues that federal and provincial ministers can discuss as they try to tackle the environmental challenges.

Going forward, as I said, I don't think we'll be able to make as much progress as we need to on the environmental front if we don't find effective ways to work together with the provinces. Whether that's through the CCME...I'm not really commenting on the forum because I really don't know enough about it, but I know we need to work together with them. Similarly, if we're going to work together internationally and with the United States, could the CEC be a forum? I don't know in particular. But I think we're going to have to find ways to have very good dialogues about the policies we're contemplating, the implications they may have for the environment and for the economy, and those fora can prove to be very useful.

Just drawing on my other experiences, it is much like the tax area, where you have similar types of fora, both domestically and internationally, that can be very effective in trying to make sure we are understanding the issues we face. When you go across different countries, one of the things I have found is that we are actually grappling with many of the same issues, and there's a lot of commonality in thinking and analysis that's gone into it. It's a useful opportunity to share and maybe try to find some of the best practices that were discussed earlier. What my particular role will be, it's early days, but obviously there'll be a lot of dialogue on both those fronts.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do I have time for one more question?

When I was the chief of enforcement back in 1988, I had the privilege of being part of a very interesting initiative between the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board and the line departments. As chief of enforcement, I became very engaged in this initiative, which involved looking at alternative approaches to compliance. Part of that initiative included a dialogue with the United States and taking a look at their alternative approaches. Have you run across that? Do you think you'll become engaged in that at all? One of the things we looked at was the use of economic instruments.

[Bob Hamilton]

No, I haven't come across that particular issue in my short time there. I can imagine that it would be a fruitful area where we could work together with the United States, or whoever it might be, because I can imagine that such a dialogue would actually be very beneficial for all jurisdictions involved.

In my short time there it hasn't been one of the preoccupations. But it is there and I could imagine it becoming an issue for us very quickly on a number of fronts.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can you share with us what particular activities you have been asked to assist on?

[Bob Hamilton]

As I say, if I talk about going forward, I'm not sure exactly how things are going to unfold and what the deputy will think I'm most beneficial to work on.

Up until now it has primarily been on the climate change file. I've been trying to understand what the issues are out there and what other jurisdictions are doing, and how what is being proposed by us and others translates itself into effects on the environment and on the economy as well. I'm just trying to piece this together in my mind, and I haven't concluded anything yet, obviously. I will probably keep those conclusions to myself for the moment. But I'm trying to understand the linkages, and in particular, at this point in time, what are some of the particular things that are happening out there in the economy in financial markets and credit markets that are maybe having an impact on what would be the most desirable environment policy.

So those have been some of the things, and obviously there's been a lot of discussion about climate change issues recently. We have a new administration in the United States, and that maybe opens up a different way of analyzing the issue.

One of the things that I do see--and you could say this globally--is that the impact of what we do here in Canada is going to be different depending on what other jurisdictions do, whether that's the United States, obviously one of our most closely aligned economic partners, or globally. With the new administration in the United States, and understanding as they find their way into what they want to do from an environmental and economic perspective, I'm thinking about how that translates into some of the things that we might or might not want to do.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton, for being here, and congratulations on your appointment. I want to focus on what you bring to this position. You've just touched on the importance of partnership economically and environmentally. I want to know what you'd bring to this position in terms of your experience with relationships that have been built since 1985, when I believe you started with the federal government. You have relationships that have been built over those years with our partners in the U.S. and other levels of government. To be economically and environmentally successful, there's that balance.

So what kinds of partnerships have you built over the years that you'll bring to this position?

[Bob Hamilton]

Thank you.

There are a couple of things that I hope I bring to the position. The first, as you've alluded to, is that I've spent all of my career really analyzing policy issues and sorting out what the implications are of particular options or choices for the economy on a whole range of issues. So I bring to it an ability to look at policy issues that are complex. I try to break them down, understand them, and provide the best advice I can to the minister of the day. So that's one issue, and it runs through the tax policy that I've been involved in, the financial sector policy, and a range of issues, and I look forward to applying some of those to the environmental file.

On the other issue that you raised as well, partnerships, in all of the areas I've worked, as I mentioned earlier, it has been important not only to think about what we are doing as a federal government, but also what is happening either at the provincial level here in Canada or in other countries, whether it be the United States or globally. And I think I've shown a capacity to work effectively in those domains.

For example, I chaired a federal-provincial committee on taxation when I was the ADM of tax policy. I was the chairman of a working party at the OECD, for two years, I believe. I was Canada's representative on the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, and I have participated in a number of other ways with colleagues in other countries or provinces.

As well, I mentioned earlier my involvement in setting up and implementing the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. That was obviously a very intensive federal-provincial exercise, where I was the federal representative on the committee.

So I believe I bring a cooperative approach, and people have told me that. Now, maybe they're just being nice to me, I don't know. But I hope I bring that. And on the environmental issues that I'm working on, I hope I can bring that as well, in addition to providing, hopefully, the policy analysis that I've shown on the policy issues, and finally, an ability to translate those policies into actions. If I use the tax policy analogy, it's a matter of trying to think through what the options are for a tax policy issue, presenting them, deciding what to do, but then also making sure that the legislation is drafted and the regulations are there, the administration is proper, and that we get the initiative out the door, implemented, and people start complying with it.

So I think I bring a very cooperative, constructive approach to these multi-party exercises, and I expect, over the coming weeks, months, and years at Environment to be involved in a number of them, including, as was mentioned, within the federal government and making sure we're taking a cooperative, constructive approach with each other.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I believe, Mr. Warawa, that you want to split your time with Mr. Calkins.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes. How much time do we have left?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about three and a half minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

It's certainly nice to have you here, Mr. Hamilton, and I certainly congratulate you on your recent designation as associate deputy minister at the Department of Environment. I look forward to your long stay there, which I know will give you opportunities to get back before this committee.

My question for you is bit of a philosophical question about you as a person and as a thinker and a professional. You certainly have a large repertoire under your belt, so I'm going to get right to it.

What is your philosophical approach to your role in relation to the accountability you have through the department to the Auditor General and the environment commissioner? And how do you rationalize that with the seeming need today to get things moving a little bit more quickly to streamline processes, to reduce red tape, and to eliminate some of the barriers that sometimes come up? I like to refer to them as rules just for the sake of rules. How do you balance that and make sure at the same time that we can find those efficiencies while still standing the test of public scrutiny?

[Bob Hamilton]

Thank you.

That's an interesting question to pose to me after the time I've just spent at the Treasury Board, so let me elaborate a little bit.

First off, I think I've demonstrated throughout my career that I'm very respectful of both the relationships we have with ministers and the accountabilities we have to Parliament. I think I've demonstrated that my approach is to try to analyze an issue, find the right thing to do, implement it, and be as transparent as I can be about the pros, the cons, the warts, everything. I try to bring a more thorough understanding to an issue so that a proper decision can be made and implemented, and so that everybody can feel proud about themselves afterwards that they've exhibited complete professionalism in preparing that advice and carrying it out.

I feel that's been my personal contribution to not only the files I've worked on but also the people I have worked with to try to instill that spirit. Where something is awkward or difficult, we face it, we analyze it, and we do the best job we can as public servants. And I feel quite proud about that.

Secondly, you raised how one balances the trade-off of making sure we do our due diligence and are accountable and have processes in place to demonstrate that, being as efficient as we can and not getting in the way of things that need to get done. When I was at Treasury Board--a very short time--I was quite involved in an exercise that we called the “web of rules”, which is really, as you put it, rules for rules' sake.

Over time you can see these rules compound each other as people become more and more risk-averse. They say they don't want to take a decision that has an element of risk to it, so either Treasury Board is going to put a rule on them or the department is, or in some way they're going to stifle their ability to be innovative and to take the actions that are necessary, all the while respecting the reporting requirements we have and the due diligence.

The key to that going forward is taking an intelligent risk-management approach to those issues. If we're going to provide proper service to Canadians, we really do need to analyze the issue. We need to understand the risks. I'm not in favour at all of risk-ignorance. l think we need to understand the risks and find the best way to manage them. Sometimes that's going to mean devoting our resources to those highest-risk cases and making sure we're doing a good job, and sometimes it's going to mean, in very low-risk cases, that we might do things a little bit more efficiently or not put as many resources on it, and understand that mistakes may be made there--but hopefully not. Hopefully, there won't be any. If there are, we'd do our best to manage, contain, and recover from them.

I think there's scope, without losing any accountability or transparency, to actually just be a little bit smarter about the rules we have in place and the mechanisms. For example, as part of the web of rules exercise, we looked across the government at all the different reporting requirements we had, and we were able to eliminate quite a number of them without losing any information, just really recognizing that the same piece of information is collected in different spots.

I don't think you need at all sacrifice the integrity of the system by trying to do things in a more efficient, intelligent way.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We now move to our second round.

We have Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Calkins....

The order is as follows: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party. We take it in turns.

Ordinarily, there would not be questions from the NDP on the second round. However, the NDP has asked whether Mr. Hyer, who is here this morning with Ms. Duncan, could ask some questions. That requires the consent of the committee, given the routine motion we have adopted in that regard.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Does that mean someone on the other side does not get a turn? How does that work?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We could put it at the end.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Rather than wasting time, Mr. Chair, why don't we just proceed and hope for the best?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, the suggestion is taken.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hamilton, welcome to the committee. I've looked at your CV and I've looked at what this process entails. We're restricted to examining your qualifications and your competence to perform the duties of the post to which you've been appointed. I take it you're not a trained physical or natural scientist.

[Bob Hamilton]

I'm an economist.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You're an economist, so you're a social scientist. The environment department is one of the key science-based departments in the federal government. This is not to suggest in any way that you're not going to bring a whole series of strengths to this position. I'm very impressed by your 25 years with the Department of Finance, because, in my experience, one of the major stumbling blocks to making progress in the federal government is the Department of Finance.

I want to ask you a bit about that. How do you see the central agencies, like Treasury Board, PCO, and Finance? How do you intend to meaningfully engage them, for example, on overcoming their resistance to re-examine neo-conservative economic practice?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No, this is not about the Conservative Party; this is about social--