Environment Committee on March 23rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We are going to start doing our study of the Federal Sustainable Development Act and a review of the draft federal sustainable development strategy, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and subsection 9(3) of the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

We have joining us today as witnesses, from the Department of the Environment, Michael Keenan, the assistant deputy minister for the strategic policy branch, and from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Caroline Weber, assistant deputy minister of corporate services, policy and communications branch.

Welcome, both of you, to the table. We're looking forward to your opening comments.

Mr. Keenan, please kick us off.

[Michael Keenan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by describing the proposed approach we are taking to the implementation of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I will then respond to your questions and comments.

The draft strategy released last week represents focused work to improve the way the federal government plans for sustainable development and, importantly, to address weaknesses of the old system that have been noted by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and others.

Since 1995, when the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was created, the federal government had planned for sustainable development through the preparation and tabling of individual departmental sustainable development strategies. These strategies were produced every three years between 1997 and 2006. This was a very decentralized approach. Almost from the time of implementation, it was criticized repeatedly as lacking central leadership, coordination and follow-up.

As a result, in 2006 the Minister of the Environment, Minister Ambrose at the time, released a fourth and final round of departmental strategies committed to strengthening the overall approach to sustainable development. As members of the committee know well--as many contributed, through hard work--the Federal Sustainable Development Act was passed in June 2008 with all-party support. The purpose of the act is to provide a legal framework for developing and implementing the federal sustainable development strategy to make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable.

We would submit that the draft strategy represents the first significant improvement to sustainable development planning and reporting since 1995, and reflects the government's commitment to environmental sustainability through improved transparency and accountability. The draft strategy is geared to making environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable. Our hope and plan is that this greater transparency would in turn drive progress in environmental decision-making. The update of the strategy and the reporting on results every three years provides the basis for constant improvement and innovation over the long term.

The greater transparency that drives the cycle of continuous progress would be the result of three key improvements coming from the new federal sustainable development strategy. The first is it provides an integrated, whole-of-government view of federal actions and results to achieve goals in environmental sustainability. So instead of a production of 32 stand-alone and sometimes inconsistent departmental reports--as was done under the previous approach--the government will now produce one sustainable development strategy that reflects actions across government.

The second is it links sustainable development planning and reporting to key planning and decision-making processes of the government, particularly the expenditure management system.

Third, it would drive real progress on environmental sustainability by establishing effective monitoring and reporting on results, which in turn allows parliamentarians and Canadians to track progress across the Government of Canada towards meeting goals and targets with respect to environmental sustainability.

I'd like to just take a minute in terms of each of these three features because they are at the heart of the new strategy. In terms of the whole-of-government approach, it is something that has been cropping up in comments from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development as far back as 2001, when he commented on the lack of a common management approach to sustainable development across the Government of Canada. The draft strategy reflects not just a common management approach but the product of significant senior-level engagement across the government to ensure a whole-of-government approach underneath in terms of the work that contributes to this strategy. A lot of that is driven through the sustainable development office that we have created in Environment Canada.

The proposed approach is to allow parliamentarians to have a one-stop view across the entire government of goals, of targets, and of implementation activities that are driving towards those.

The second element of key importance is the linking to the government-wide planning and reporting. At the broadest level, this mainstreams, if you will, the management of sustainable development as recommended by the OECD and other organizations. It brings sustainable development into the core budgeting planning processes and systems of the Government of Canada. It provides much better access to various information in terms of activities and results generating from those activities, and it reflects comments from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development where he has recommended that the sustainable development strategies adopt and follow the forms of the reports on plans and priorities as mandated by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

In terms of monitoring and reporting, we are proposing in this strategy a new approach that places a much greater emphasis on the use of objective and rigorous data that's much more focused on results with respect to the environment as opposed to processes and activities. In supporting that, we're making much better use of data under the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators program. This was a program for which the Government of Canada renewed funding in the latest federal budget.

Again, I think this would map to many comments we've seen from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development where he's looking for a standardized process for monitoring the implementation and reporting on progress. That would in turn be a powerful factor for a future federal sustainable development strategy.

The goal in this plan and in these three features is to establish a system that will, over time, drive a continuous cycle of improvement based on the principles of “plan, do, check, and improve” that are often favoured by auditors and agencies such as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

With these three key management features in the foundation, the strategy outlines and encompasses goals, targets, and implementation strategies in four areas that are of high importance with respect to environmental sustainability: addressing climate change and air quality; maintaining water availability and quality; protecting nature; and finally, shrinking the environmental footprint, beginning with government.

The tables in the consultation paper reflect a snapshot of the situation today with respect to the goals, targets, and implementation strategies across the Government of Canada. The proposed federal strategy is meant to provide a basis to report on these goals in a highly transparent manner. It does not, in and of itself, establish new goals or new implementation strategies, but it creates the transparency by which the core decision-making processes of governments can move forward in these areas of environmental sustainability.

As a result, there is a visage, a strategy, through which the situation with respect to goals, targets, and implementation strategies is dynamic and evolves over time; ideally, and on purpose, the transparency from this strategy would help to drive that process of advancing these issues with respect to environmental sustainability.

Online consultations on the proposed federal sustainable development strategy began last week. Canadians, parliamentarians, the sustainable development advisory committee, and others are now in the process of reviewing the strategy and providing their comments during the 120-day review period, which ends in early July. The government will then pull together a final strategy based on the advice that we receive and envisages tabling a final strategy in Parliament very soon after its resumption in the fall, within the 15 sitting days of June 26, as required in legislation.

This is a long-term endeavour. All of the advice and the best practices mention the focus on the long term, but there is a sense in this strategy that it puts in place the foundation for a cycle of continuous innovation and continuous improvement in every three-year cycle. That is at the heart of the new strategy.

I would like to close, Mr. Chair, by emphasizing the government's commitment to improving sustainable development, and as the head of the federal sustainable development office, I want to emphasize our commitment in terms of driving this change and this innovation, based on the guidance of this committee and others, in the implementation of a new federal sustainable development strategy.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Keenan. I appreciate your opening comments.

I want to remind the committee that we have votes tonight at 5:30. The bells will go off at 5:15, so we have about an hour and a half. I'm going to be judicious and make sure everybody stays within the timeframe so that everyone has a chance to ask questions.

Kicking off the seven-minute round is Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Keenan and Ms. Weber, for being here.

Mr. Keenan, I want to go back to a couple of things and correct the record about the indicators initiative you mentioned. I don't think you addressed this, but it's important for folks to know.

When Minister Martin was Minister of Finance, he asked the Prime Minister's national round table to devise a small suite of indicators so he could use them in budget-making speeches to tell Canadians the fuller truth about the state of our well-being. I don't think it's quite correct for you to suggest in your remarks that the government has renewed funding for all those indicators. We know, for example, that the indicator dealing with either wetlands or forest cover, which was being pursued in cooperation with our space agency, had its funding reduced significantly.

I also want to ask you a really interesting question--maybe not interesting to you, but interesting to me.

Mr. Mulroney signed the original agreements in 1992 in Rio and created the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It was supposed to be our principal institutional response to the Rio declaration and the agreements we signed there. Mr. Mulroney had the wisdom to create a body that was based in his office. It was the Prime Minister's round table based out of PCO.

Since the arrival of the Conservatives, they have demoted this organization and it now reports directly only to the Minister of the Environment. They changed its enabling legislation without debate. I think that's a terrible mistake, just as I'm deeply worried about what you're presenting here--that this national sustainable development strategy is going to be enforced and developed by Environment Canada. My recollection is that Environment Canada is the second- or third-least funded department in the federal government.

By situating this strategy inside Environment Canada you're making it the “enviro-cop” of the federal government. Sustainable development is not supposed to be about the marginalization of these issues into an environment department. We saw the government do that already with the Prime Minister's round table, and then it cut eight of its 26 positions just last week.

Environment Canada has very limited capacity in policy, very little economic modelling capacity, very little econometric history, and very little reach and influence on Finance Canada and the Treasury Board. How do you see this new office, based in Environment Canada, with seemingly revolving ministers of the environment over three and five years, as being capable of influencing the entire federal government, with its $257 billion worth of spending? Why shouldn't this organization be based where it properly should have been with the round table at PCO, where its responsibility is to steer and not so much to row?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I will just pause your time there, Mr. McGuinty, and draw your attention to page 1,068 in chapter 20 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, regarding the questioning of public servants:

The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government

Mr. Keenan, I'll let you answer Mr. McGuinty's questions within the purview in which you feel comfortable.

There are four minutes remaining.

[Michael Keenan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think there were four questions, and I have four minutes.

I'll go quite quickly through the issue you raise in terms of environmental indicators.

I think, Mr. Chair, the honourable member is absolutely right that the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators program, which runs at about $9.2 million a year, was renewed for two years by this government in the budget. That program will enable the collection of water quality information, air quality information, and protected lands information across the country. It's a very important program, and in my view, and in the view of the federal sustainable development office, that renewal has been intrinsically positive to our ability to create results-based indicators to track the strategy.

I think the member's right in the sense that there are other environmental indicators, beyond the ones funded in this program, and that you have to have a picture of the whole thing. But the continuation of that $9 million program is really key to providing us with the tools we need for this.

In terms of the funding for Environment Canada, I don't know where it ranks. I know that our mains this year have asked Parliament for $1.1 billion. That would make it far above the second or third smallest. I think we're somewhere in the middle of the pack, but I couldn't say exactly where.

In terms of EC being the enviro-cop of econometric capacity, let me say that as the assistant deputy minister of strategic policy, I am responsible for economic analysis in Environment Canada. I can tell you that our ability to do econometric modelling and enviro-econometric modelling can't be touched.

The Department of Finance sometimes gets nervous, because we can model impacts that they can't touch and don't understand. I've been in charge of econometric modelling at the Department of Agriculture and at Environment Canada, and actually, we have a pretty good capacity.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me just ask you, Mr. Keenan, how many staff you have doing economic modelling.

[Michael Keenan]

The environmental analysis directorate is running at about 40-some people. They do a wide range of economic analysis. The core group that does econometric modelling probably runs to around a dozen. We commit significant resources, and I would submit that our ability to model the interaction of the environment and the economy in an econometrically valid manner is untouched in the Canadian context. I'm getting off track a little bit.

In terms of being the enviro-cop, I think it's an important point. The point of leadership across the government is a key issue and is critical to the success of this strategy. Our approach, and my approach, has been to convene, on a regular cycle, senior officials at the assistant deputy minister level across the system.

We've built an extremely strong partnership with the Treasury Board Secretariat, because that's intrinsic to the second feature of the program, which is to link sustainable development with the expenditure management system. Because of the strong partnership with the Treasury Board Secretariat and the general support we have around the system, I'm confident that we can run the federal sustainable development office out of Environment Canada and achieve significant change in the management of sustainable development.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

There are only about 10 seconds left, so we'll just move on.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras, vous avez sept minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank you for presenting to us your sustainable development strategy. We had been waiting for it for several weeks.

This is a strategy that you will have to present to Parliament and to an advisory council on sustainable development comprised of one representative from each province and three representatives from other sectors, such as first nations, non-governmental organizations, the business community and organized labour.

Have all of the representatives been appointed and is the full make-up of the council now known?

[Michael Keenan]

The short answer to these questions is yes, and yes.

As the member has accurately described, the legislation requires the appointment of 25 members to the sustainable development advisory committee. All 25 have been appointed by the minister.

My office has connected with each of the 25, and I've just started the process of scheduling the first introductory meeting--it's going to be a teleconference--of the advisory committee. I believe we're doing that on March 30.

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

Let me be clear about what you are saying. All of the provinces have at least one representative on the council.

[Michael Keenan]

Yes, all of the provinces appoint at least one representative to the council.

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

Could we possibly see the list of council members?

[Michael Keenan]

I'd be happy to provide you with the list of names. As a matter of fact, we are just now handing the clerk copies of the membership list.

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

Fine.

I have looked at your draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. As I see it, one of the key elements of a sustainable development strategy, albeit not the be-all and end-all, is the so-called strategic environmental assessment.

Where is this key element of a sustainable development strategy to be found in your document?

It is important to remember that since 1994, I believe, each department has been required, pursuant to a directive from the Prime Minister's Office, to conduct a strategic environmental assessment of plans, policies and programs.

Where in your sustainable development strategy is provision made to require departments, in accordance with this directive or order, to conduct a strategic environmental assessment?

[Michael Keenan]

I will answer the question in English.

Mr. Chair, the honourable member is right, there is a cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessment that has been in place for a number of years. The proposed changes are a very important element of the decision-making in the Government of Canada. The proposed changes that are a part of the federal sustainable development strategy do not change that directive. That directive remains in place and is part of the foundation of environmental decision-making going forward.

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

I understand that this does not change the directive, but we have seen from experience and from the various reports by commissioners of the environment that a number of departments do not comply with the directive from the Prime Minister's Office.

I recall the heading of one chapter in the Commissioner of the Environment's report which claimed that Finance Canada was dragging its feet. That was the assessment of the Commissioner of the Environment of the department's compliance with the strategic environment assessment requirement.

Could you tell me how the Sustainable Development Office will be able to issue a clearer directive than the one issued by the Prime Minister's Office? Fundamentally, parliamentarians agreed to adopt Mr. Godfrey's bill several years ago because they believed that legislation with more bite was needed.

So then, how can you convince us that this legislation, adopted by Parliament, will ensure that one of the key elements of the sustainable development strategy, namely the strategic environmental assessment, will be embraced by all departments? That's what I want to know.

[Michael Keenan]

Mr. Chair, I'll respond to that question in two ways.

One is to say that while the strategy does not change the application of the cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessments and does not change the roles—for example, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has a key role in the administration of it, and the Privy Council Office has a key role in the administration of it in ensuring the orderly preparation of memoranda to cabinet—the federal sustainability strategy will in a significant manner support the application of that directive in the following way, by means of the second feature, which links to sustainable development.

In the current system, the sustainable development strategies were kept, if you will, to the side. They were not linked to the expenditure management system; they were not linked to the major processes of decision-making through MCs and through Treasury Board submissions. By linking sustainable development to the expenditure management system, we bring the information on sustainable development into the expenditure management system. That is precisely the information that is included in a memorandum to cabinet, which is where the scans and the assessments with respect to the directive apply. We'll bring better information into that decision-making process, and I believe that will enable the government to do a better job of operating the cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessment.

One of the issues is the quality of the information concerning environmental impacts, which is one of the key considerations in the scan and in deciding how to apply the directive. This strategy, once fully in place, once linking sustainable development and environmental goals and targets and implementation strategies into the expenditure management system, will thereby bring that information into decision-making documents, such as memoranda to cabinet, and in that indirect but powerful way will, I believe, support better application of the strategic environmental assessment.

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

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Monsieur Bigras.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Keenan and Ms. Weber, thanks for coming before us today.

One thing that puzzles me, Mr. Keenan, is that this act is very clear. It starts out in section 3 by saying that the “purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework” for holding the government accountable on sustainable development. So “legal framework“ is very clear.

Then subsection 11(4) provides for the making of regulations, clearly outlining exactly how those reports are to be provided.

I did a search. I can't find any regulations that have been promulgated. We found a legally non-binding guide document.

So where is the legal framework for implementing this statute that has supposedly specifically provided a legal framework to therefore ensure accountability?

[Michael Keenan]

Thank you for the question. I'll respond in two parts.

I don't mean to quibble, but in terms of the purpose of the act—and this has been important for us, because we've been very much guided by section 3 of the act—is to make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable, as opposed to sustainable development. It's important because we've really focused on environmental decision-making in terms of the descriptions of the goals and targets.

That's not a central answer to your question, but I think it's important, because we have been very much guided by the legislation.