Environment Committee on March 23rd, 2010

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

A further question. Canadians are concerned about the really important trends in the environment and they want to see cleaner air and water and be assured that nature is being protected. How is this going to be connected to the progress indicators you've set?

[Michael Keenan]

That's a great question, and it speaks to the previous example with respect to the clean air agenda. It was very difficult under the former system to find enough information in the 32 sustainable development strategies to even piece together, without the puzzle box, with just the puzzle pieces, any sense of what the government was doing with respect to improving air quality and what results were being achieved.

Under the new system that has been proposed, all the activities are pulled together with respect to air quality. It's an interesting area. It's an area for which the government does not currently have targets. That lack of targets is quite, if you will, transparent in this report, but it's an area where the government is working with provincial governments, ENGOs, and industry to pull together a national set of targets with respect to air quality. In the future reports on results, under this proposed strategy, there would be a very clear and specific accounting of the target for air quality in this country, what has been done to achieve that target, what results have been achieved in those implementation strategies, and whether they fully achieve the target or fall short.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're done? Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Trudeau, you have the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Keenan, for being here today.

I think a lot of the opposition questions are circling around the same thing, that this seems like a very nice idea, but we're very much worried about the implementation, particularly with regard to what we've seen from this government on commitment to changing behaviours because of negative impacts on the environment.

I think one thing that is of concern that keeps coming back is the fact that this will be driven from the environment ministry more than anything else, and when you get potential conflicts between the finance ministry and what they want to do, just having it coordinated into the expenditure management system may not be enough to drive the political decisions around policy.

What mechanisms are being put into this proposal to make sure that various ministries do respond to and act in consistency with the kinds of sustainable development targets we're talking about?

[Michael Keenan]

I think in responding to the question there are two dimensions.

One of them is, I guess, with respect to the role of Environment Canada. Given that the purpose of the act is to make environmental decision-making more transparent for parliamentarians, I would submit that it makes sense for Environment Canada to take the lead in that. We are the department, quite frankly, that cares about that. Our minister is accountable for that and champions that very strongly in government. So we're the ones who have the interest in driving it. I'm the one who drags my colleagues together. I'm the one who has formed a partnership with Treasury Board to get this into the estimates process so there's money connected to it.

But I think your more fundamental question is how this translates into progress. The strategy by which this translates into progress is quite simply transparency. It was difficult to tell where things.... Under the former system, you could read through 32 reports and you would be left wondering what's being done, what's being spent, what's being achieved. It was very difficult to tell. It was virtually impossible in many areas.

By pulling this together and by driving a system that's connected to all of the budget decision-making by the estimates process in Parliament, the information is pulled together and parliamentarians can judge, Canadians can judge easily. They can judge what the government is doing, what it's achieving, and whether or not it's falling short, coming closer, or moving farther away from the goals it's established. It can also see clearly where it has good goals, it has not-so-strong goals, or it is missing goals. Already there have been three or four comments around the table with respect to a target that is missing, a target that needs to be added.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I think you'll understand, though, the opposition's shared concern that if a measure is going to hold this government to account because of its transparency, I think there's a real worry that the information is not going to become available. I mean, it's one thing for something to be transparent within the government as to what it is they are doing. It's another thing for all parliamentarians to have access--and, much more, the Canadian public--to be able to see the details of what's going into this expenditure management system, for example, and to watch the political wrangling that necessarily goes on behind the scenes as to what kind of compromises one makes.

I understand that the environment ministry is very much focused on the environment, but the silo of the environment ministry being, as my colleague said, the environmental cop means that you're sitting around a cabinet table negotiating with everyone else who has their interests forward. I don't think that basing it in Environment this way is going to give it the weight that's going to be necessary to truly transform the decision-making process at all different sectors of government towards that. I hope it will. I think it's a good idea. I'm just very worried about the capacity to execute.

[Michael Keenan]

With respect to the concern that the honourable member has just expressed, I would say that I probably wasn't quite precise when I was talking about transparency. The transparency that we're focused on and the transparency that we're committed to provide as part of this strategy is actually a public transparency. These numbers, these activities, what it adds up to, what it achieves would be in public documents. The government-wide planning document every three years, the government-wide reporting document every three years, the individual departmental estimates document in terms of the reports on plans and priorities, and the departmental performance report will all have to align to this corporate government report every year. The idea is to get this information out there and make it available to parliamentarians so they can hold the government to account and therein influence decision-making.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

That would be a wonderful shift if it were to actually happen.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be a vacationer on this committee, sitting in as a substitute.

Before I get to my question, I was just interested in the comments from across the way, about being worried about the implementation. I think the credibility actually comes from...and my colleague had just talked about it.

I know they may have a little trouble understanding how things actually get done within a timeframe, but within 18 months we've actually got an implementation. We've got a sustainability report here. What drives it is, again, unique; I think right now it's obviously the transparency that will come.

When I read through this and tried to understand the 32 separate silos, anyone who has business sense would know you can never deal with that. It takes a management system. It takes coordination within a department and with a department to come up with a consensus and an approach that can actually be discussed and to then have a report come forward. It's called a whole-of-government picture. It actually makes the departments and agencies accountable to each other rather than just to themselves--i.e., laying it out there and saying, “You know, this is only our point of view. For the rest, the other 31, you're on your own.” That's not the approach that needs to be taken.

I think congratulations should be given to the ministers who have taken the initiative and taken hold of something that sat around for 13 years or however long the time was. It obviously needed repair. The mechanic has come along and we now have a vehicle that is actually running much better. That's not to say it's perfect. That's not to say it's complete. I think the Canadian people obviously recognize that something drastic had to be done.

We now have a strategic approach, which I think is really important. At the start of it, there's reference to inclusion under the theme of shrinking the environmental footprint. We then talk about actually setting the example through government. We have all the other aspects within our economy and across the country. We talk about how we're going to measure it for the environment.

Beginning with the government, could you tell us about the progress on greening operations? Is there anything you can tell us in terms of some type of status for where we are, since as a government we want to have a leading edge?

[Caroline Weber]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question.

We have been active. Since April 2006, we've actually had in place an approved Treasury Board policy on green procurement. The implementation of the policy was deemed satisfactory by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in his March 2008 report. As a result of this policy, we have completed and have ready green standing offers that are available for use by departments in areas of government spending, including vehicles, fuels, information technology equipment, paper, and furniture.

There's also a Treasury Board directive on the executive fleet, which now requires all vehicles to be four-cylinder, hybrid, or run on alternative fuel. As we replace our fleet, we're replacing it with more environmentally friendly and energy-efficient vehicles.

In terms of new office buildings, they must meet the LEED gold level of performance. In the rare instances when we talk about new construction, there is a certain environmental level that we need to meet or exceed. Some federal buildings actually meet LEED for environmental design. A Public Works and Government Services Canada building was the first LEED gold administrative building north of the 60th parallel. Parks Canada has a building that was the first LEED platinum building in Canada.

The strategy gives us an opportunity to make more progress in those areas and to ensure consistency across the Government of Canada.

Thank you for the question.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have about 10 seconds left.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll move on.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to the witnesses for appearing.

Just so I understand this--and I'm listening to Mr. Trudeau's questions here--let me see if I've got this. By bringing sustainable development considerations into the EMS system, that in fact makes cabinet the first check in the system rather than a department official or somewhere else, or parliamentarians for that matter. It makes cabinet the very first check in the system.

I'm not a prime minister. I'm not campaigning to be one, either, in case anybody wants to know. But if I were sitting at the top of cabinet, I wouldn't know what's going on in a particular department somewhere way down deep with respect to sustainable development or a commitment that the government may have made. I would become aware of that if cabinet itself were discussing it on an ongoing basis, therefore being able to have the oversight over the government's overall objectives and agenda and commitments in this regard. The FSDS establishes that type of an ongoing system, where the prime minister and his cabinet are talking about these initiatives on an ongoing basis.

Is that a fair assessment? Does it make cabinet, if you will, the first check in the system?

[Michael Keenan]

I think it does in a manner. I think the honourable member is right that by bringing it into the expenditure management system, it brings it more directly into those decision-making things, the deliberations of cabinet informed by memorandum to cabinet, the deliberations of Treasury Board informed by Treasury Board submissions.

In my experience, those issues are currently deliberated in cabinet when the relevant issue goes. What happens now is that it takes sometimes a Herculean effort on the part of officials to pull together the information to give ministers a decent picture of what's happening, what's being spent, and what results are being achieved. This makes that a much easier task and it makes it more of a normal course of events.

The assistant secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat under the expenditure management system is always striving to make sure there's better expenditure management information in cabinet deliberations. By linking it in, we bring more of this information into those deliberations and so make this a more central part of government decision-making, as the member indicated. The goal of transparency here is, as I've mentioned, outside transparency, so Parliament can hold the government to account, but it actually makes the information more available for internal decision-making at the same time.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Theoretically, at least, that can occur on a more frequent basis as estimates are put forward. Departmental officials can be questioned on progress as well with respect to sustainable development throughout a year instead of having to wait, say, a year, or wait for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainment Development to issue a report and then question the commissioner on something like that. This can be done on a much more frequent basis.

[Michael Keenan]

The honourable member is exactly right. The first departmental sustainable development strategy will come into force in 2011-12. When the government comes to seek supply from Parliament in 2011-12, the part IIIs, the reports on plans and priorities, would include in them very specific demarcation of the spending request and how it relates to sustainable development targets as fully described in the government-wide federal sustainable development plan.

So when committees are going through the estimates, that information would actually be in front of you on a yearly basis.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So does it create the additional impetus for government to fill in the gaps as well between here and there? You've talked about, of course, that not all goals, targets, and implementation strategies are included at the moment in the discussion document that we're talking about. But you have mentioned that it's forcing the government, if you will, or creating some impetus on the government to accelerate work in certain areas. More of those gaps will be filled in with subsequent reports, presumably, because of the process itself. Is that a fair assessment?

[Michael Keenan]

I think the answer is yes--with a bit of a comma. I think the member's absolutely right that what this does is it creates transparency on where there are strong targets, where there are weak targets, where there are no targets. It creates transparency over time where the implementation strategies may not necessarily perfectly align to the targets, so there's a little accountability discussion to be had about what's happening here.

Our sense is already that the transparency created by releasing this paper is focusing the minds a little bit, if you will, in terms of let's proceed on our government work, in whatever domain, to fill in the blank.

As I had mentioned before, this document indicates there currently are not national air quality targets, but the government is working in a collaborative process with provincial governments, under the rubric of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, with ENGOs, and with industry, seeking to establish shared national targets by all governments. Then they would automatically be read in, if you will, to the strategy and then we would start reporting on progress against those targets.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before we kick off our third round, I just have a couple of quick questions I want to ask.

In your presentation you talk about the establishment of a sustainable development office. Is there any timeframe on when that might happen, or is it going to be decided after the consultations are complete in July?

[Michael Keenan]

We have de facto created a sustainable development office. I'm the assistant deputy minister of the strategic policy branch, and within my branch I brought together two directorates, the directorate responsible for the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators program and the sustainability directorate. I brought them together to create, with the existing resource base, a larger directorate, and that directorate is the federal sustainable development office. That's the group that organizes, has prepared the material to date, and is driving the cross-government work in terms of all of the supporting analysis and documentation required to deliver on the strategy.

So it's in place. In fact, in the consultation draft you can see the request is made to send input and advice into the sustainable development office.