Environment Committee on March 23rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

When we get down the road here and we start actually looking at reporting--I'm looking at theme four, which is about shrinking the size of the environmental footprint that government makes--the reporting would be that we've taken so much greenhouse gas emissions out of the air, so many tonnes, and paper usage by departments....

Would you report that by department or generally, as overall by the government?

[Caroline Weber]

Both, ultimately. The thing that this really does change is that instead of those very different and disparate departmental reports with a lot of challenge by anyone in terms of rolling it up, we're all agreeing as part of this process across the Government of Canada to report in certain areas and use certain indicators.

Again, that's the work currently ongoing in terms of figuring out what indicators we can all produce and report against. It will be that commonality you'll see in our reports on plans and priorities and in our departmental performance reports.

The annual reports we have to produce anyway are going to include this information. Then also there will be the three-year report required by the legislation that then rolls it up and reports on progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Great. Thank you.

We'll do about a four- to five-minute round here per party.

Mr. McGuinty, perhaps you want to kick us off there.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to go back maybe just to clear the record on the revisionist history coming from some of the members of the government.

Mr. Keenan, do you recall which government actually created the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development? Which government legislated that posting into existence?

[Michael Keenan]

As I understand it, the legislation that created the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development came into force in 1995.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right: the former Liberal government. It was the former Liberal government, if I recall, that brought in the first sustainable development strategies on a line-by-line basis--27, 30 departments and agencies with eight cross-cutting themes, which has been in place since that time. Is that right?

[Michael Keenan]

The former system of sustainable development strategies, replaced by the Federal Sustainable Development Act, came in with the same legislative amendments that created the commissioner.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right: by the former Liberal government. I understand.

Can you help Canadians understand who actually started the Canadian environmental indicators project, launched it, and then funded Statistics Canada specifically to deal with the indicators?

[Michael Keenan]

I believe that program--I think the honourable member may know the history better than I do--was created based on the advice of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy with respect to indicators. I believe it has had approximately a 10-year run, which would put it back in the late nineties in terms of when it was launched.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right: the former Liberal government.

Who brought in the first greening of government operations, with the greening of the procurement, including the “House in order” measures for the federal government?

[Michael Keenan]

I would turn to my colleague on that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Ms. Weber.

[Caroline Weber]

I think it was pre-2006.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to get the record straight.

I have a question for you, as well, to deal with the eco-efficiency metrics that the former Liberal government designed for Canada. It became Canada's major contribution to the OECD and it is now, I think, the golden standard for the OECD. That has to deal with water, materials, and energy intensity. These eco-efficiency metrics were delivered to the government in 2006. They were supposed to continue in terms of their funding and their research, in partnership with the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, but that was cut in the 2006 budget as part of the $5.6 billion of cuts in climate change initiatives.

I'd like to know how you see those eco-efficiency metrics. You say you have a big team, Mr. Keenan. I'd like you to tell us how the eco-efficiency metrics that the OECD is pursuing are going to be used and translated here, particularly on water intensity, materials intensity, and energy intensity. How are we going to apply those metrics to the government's operations, particularly as we look to green government's operations, procurement and otherwise? Can you help us understand? Do you know where that's been left off since 2006 when it was given to the government?

[Michael Keenan]

I guess both the benefit and curse of having a large team is that you actually can't bring the sum of all of their knowledge to bear at any one point in time. I have an extremely limited specific knowledge about those particular eco-efficiency metrics. I am aware that the OECD is doing a body of good work, which I think they now brand as something called resource productivity—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes.

[Michael Keenan]

—which is the efficiency by which you use resources. I would say the analytical frame around that is a useful one, and it informs indirectly any number of environmental economic policy analysis elements that we do.

We're increasingly beginning to look across the life cycle in terms of the environmental footprint of products. And life cycle is not a new concept, but I think there's now greater and greater information available in order to do life cycle analysis to evaluate the overall, I would say, resource efficiency of the environmental footprint of consumption and production. That flows into the thinking behind the chemical management program and a number of other policy areas in Environment Canada--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Sorry, I have 10 seconds left, Mr. Keenan, and I wanted to remind Canadians who might listen or read these transcripts that it was Minister Copps who convened and launched the eco-efficiency metrics for Canada, which became the architecture of the OECD's eco-efficiency metrics. I think Canada should be proud of that contribution.

Furthermore, it was Mr. Godfrey, the Liberal member of this committee, who introduced this legislation that we're debating here today.

So when the government members get spurious in their allegations about doing nothing, I think it's important for Canadians to know just how much we're building on the shoulders of successive governments, including Mr. Mulroney's.

Thanks very much, Mr. Keenan.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to chapter 4 of the 2008 report of the Commissioner of the Environment. In points 4.7 and 4.8 of the report's main points, we note a commitment by your department to conduct a review in order to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of different departments in terms of their sustainable development strategies. In May of 2008, you informed the commissioner that you had completed part of the review, that you had developed a log and that the review would be completed in October 2008. To help us understand this strategy, have you completed the review that the commissioner recommended be undertaken? Would it be possible for the committee to get a copy of that review?

[Michael Keenan]

In response to the member's question, there are two elements.

The first is that in developing the proposed federal sustainable development strategy, a lot of work went into looking at the weaknesses of the existing system. Part of the review of the weaknesses included very careful consideration of the multiple criticisms the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development made not only in 2007 and 2008 but all the way back to 2001. What you see in terms of the proposal reflects our attempt to address both the criticisms and the recommendations of the commissioner in the last, I would say, seven or eight reports, stretching from about 2001 to 2008.

The second thing is that in terms of the pulling together of these assessments, I do not have such an assessment with me. I'll go back and check to see if there's information I could provide to that effect. I just don't have it with me.

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

As I recall, the review in question was scheduled to be completed by October 2008 and was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different strategies. In May 2008, you informed the Commissioner of the Environment—and this is mentioned in point 4.7 of the main points— that a portion of the work had been completed, that is that a log had been developed and that the review should be completed by October 2008. According to this report: “The Department also told us it was on schedule to finalize the review by October 2008.” My question is as follows: have you completed the review and would it be possible for the committee to get a copy of it?

Secondly, I would like to know whether in the act—

[Michael Keenan]

My apologies to the honourable member. The period of 2008 was a period of great transition in this domain as a result of the passage of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. So the work that was happening, in terms of assessing the weaknesses to deal with the frustrations.... At some point, I think the commissioner in one of his reports expressed frustration at the poor quality of the sustainable development strategy under the former system. That work, about evaluating those weaknesses, morphed into the work of creating a system for the future that would deliver on the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

My colleague behind me is nodding that we did actually complete the assessment.

We'll strive to find that document and provide it to you.

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

I understand.

[Michael Keenan]

I apologize, but I joined the department after that work was done.