Environment Committee on April 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We're continuing our review of the draft of the federal sustainable development strategy, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and subsection 9(3) of the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

This is meeting number seven, and we're welcoming to the table witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General. We have Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who is no stranger to the committee.

We're glad to see you back.

With him is Andrew Ferguson, who is a principal, and Bruce Sloan, who is also a principal with sustainable development strategies, audits, and studies.

We welcome both of you to the table, along with Commissioner Vaughan.

As per usual, if you can give us your opening remarks and keep them under 10 minutes, Mr. Vaughan, we'd appreciate that.

[Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having us.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be here to share some of our preliminary views on the draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. I am joined by senior colleagues from the office, Andrew Ferguson, Bruce Sloan, Richard Arseneault and Jim McKenzie.

I received the draft strategy from Minister Prentice on March 16. Under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I am required to review a draft of the strategy and provide comments to the minister as to whether the targets and implementation strategies contained in the draft strategy can be assessed.

We have 120 days to meet that requirement. As you can appreciate, we have only recently begun our review. We are also striving to send our analysis in less than 120 days. For your information, I will provide my comments to the Minister of the Environment and copy this committee.

Since we are still reviewing the draft, I am not yet able to provide you with our final observations. However, I thought it might be helpful to share with you some contextual remarks and issues that we will be considering as we carry out our review and that we believe need to be addressed by a federal government strategy in order to make progress.

First, given the reach and influence of the federal government, a federal strategy has significant potential to promote more sustainable development across Canada and is therefore an important government initiative. It is also an inherently difficult one. However, it has been 15 years since the federal government formally committed to the concept of sustainable development and created the requirements for sustainable development strategies.

Since 1997, departments have been producing sustainable development strategies, and my office has examined and reported to Parliament on them annually, noting serious shortcomings both in the individual departmental strategies and, more generally, in the government's overall approach.

In our 2007 report, we concluded that the process was not working. We recommended that the government review its overall approach and establish a set of federal goals for sustainable development including specific performance expectations, indicators and targets to serve as objectively verifiable benchmarks against which progress can be measured.

So today, in its federal sustainable development strategy for Canada, the government has set out a single set of federal government goals, targets, and implementation strategies. This development is a welcome one. We are hopeful that the shortcomings we identified with past strategies will have been addressed.

During our review we will look at the government's targets and implementation strategies to determine whether they are specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-bound, such that progress can be objectively assessed. Given the 120-day period available for this period, it will not be possible for us to determine fully whether the government has put in place the necessary management systems to actually be able to assess and report on the implementation of its consultation paper.

Nevertheless we will examine the government's draft strategy in the context of the legal obligations set out in the act. For example, with regard to section 3, which sets out the purpose of the act, we would expect to see an explanation in the strategy of what environmental decision-making entails. We would also expect the strategy to elaborate on how the government intends to make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable than it is today by setting targets and implementation strategies describing how and when this is to be accomplished.

We will also assess the strategy against guidelines set out by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for good corporate plans. For example, we will examine whether the strategy includes a description of the main risks and the major assumptions used in preparing the strategy, a description of significant changes to government policies, processes or activities, and whether the human and financial resources necessary to implement the strategy are discussed.

In conclusion, we have now commenced our review of the federal strategy, and we will be pleased to share the results after writing to the minister.

Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Just before we kick off questions, what type of timeframe are you looking at to getting your review of the strategy comments back to the minister?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, could you repeat that again?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're saying that once you finish your review of the strategy and report back to the ministry, you'd be happy to share the results with the committee.

When do you think that would be?

[Scott Vaughan]

Well, we would like to use less than 120 days. I would like to be able to provide the letter to the minister and to copy the committee--both places--by around mid-June.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I appreciate that.

With that, we'll go to our seven-minute round.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, if you'd kick us off....

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, it's always nice to have you with us.

You're obviously an important driver of this committee. One of the problems we have--this is a bit of an aside--in Parliament, I think, is that we're expected to look at issues critically, and we have superb Library of Parliament researchers, but we just don't have enough of them. So the kind of information you provide is very valuable.

One of my questions is about the strategy and your role with respect to it.

After you evaluate and study the strategy, what will come out of that evaluation? Will we have some interesting information to be able to question governments on environmental policy? Or could this amount to a bit of a smokescreen, in the sense that the government will come out with a strategy with much fanfare and then the commissioner will look at it and say, yes, there are targets and timelines--so all is hunky dory, without commenting on whether the targets or the guidelines are any good. I mean, the government could come out with some very modest targets, some very modest goals, and you would sort of be hamstrung, having to say that at least they came out with targets, and that's great.

So what can we expect? What kind of advice will you be giving? What kinds of observations will you be making?

[Scott Vaughan]

We will be making two types of commentary, and the first is in compliance with the legal obligations that Parliament set out in the act, which was to make a determination within the 120 days on whether both the targets and implementation strategies can be assessed. I think that determination will be, is there a clear target, and is it measurable within the act? It asked for measurable targets. Measurability is one of the criteria I think I mentioned in the opening statement.

We will probably look at it beyond that narrow legal requirement and look at it from what we've seen in the past, and whether or not this is meeting the expectations of Parliament in passing this important act. We will look both at the narrow legal obligations as well as more broadly, and provide some commentary based on the extensive experience of this office in reviewing these past strategies.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So if you were looking, for example, at the federal--and you are looking at the sustainable development strategy.... How would the government's latest moves on environmental assessment factor into your analysis? Would that be completely outside of your scope? Or would you be able to look at that and say the government is talking tough, but on the other hand seems to be devolving environmental assessment to the provinces and--I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, Commissioner--they might not be giving themselves the tools they need to reach the targets they're giving themselves.

It gets very murky at some point, I would think.

[Scott Vaughan]

Let me just answer two things.

Last November, we provided to this committee a review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and we made several observations. We are keenly looking forward to the important work of this committee in the CEAA review.

Within the strategy itself, I may ask my colleagues.... I did not see a specific reference to federal obligations to environmental assessments. However, I think that within at least three of the four areas, for example, water, biodiversity, or wetlands, there are important triggers for the federal environmental assessment process. If you think of wetlands or water, the fish habitat obligations are an important regulatory trigger within that, so whether there's an explicit reference in the strategy, environmental assessment is one of the keystone areas in environmental policy.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So you'll be able to comment on whether the government's policy on environmental assessment is consistent with its obligations to protect the environment.

[Scott Vaughan]

We have, as I've said, in a November 2009 chapter on the review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, but are you able to factor that into your evaluation?

[Scott Vaughan]

If it was relevant to our evaluation, then we would. If it's not contained within the strategy as it is now, we are very careful not to stray into areas beyond our mandate.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes.

The act gives you 120 days to evaluate the strategy. Is that enough, or should that be amended to make it 180 days, for example?

[Scott Vaughan]

If you're asking whether we have enough time, I think we're very comfortable with the timeline the government has set out for us. I think this is ample time for us to do what Parliament expected us to do.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but this is a major new task you've been given on top of all the other valuable work you do. Will this task of analyzing a sustainable strategy, which may or may not amount to much given your fixed resources, compromise your ability to pursue other issues you'd like to look into? In other words, do you need more resources to do this work?

[Scott Vaughan]

No.

As you know, the office has been reviewing these strategies since 1995, so this is a continuation of existing work. We have some new obligations; the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act is a newer obligation. But no, we're all highly conscious that financially the government is constrained overall, and we're working within existing resources and hoping to do the best we can in giving the information to Parliament.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay, that covers it for me. I don't know how much time I have--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

About ten seconds.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Well done.

Carrying right along....

Mr. Bigras, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, commissioner. It is always a great pleasure to have you here.

Mr. Chair, we should try to incorporate the opinions of the environment commissioner into our deliberations on a more frequent and regular basis. It would be very worthwhile.

What struck me is the fact that the targets in this sustainable development strategy are not very clear. We will not get into the air pollutants target, since it is under consultation, according to the strategy. I will refer to other targets. The target for chemicals management is to “[r]educe risks to Canadians and impacts on the environment posed by toxic substances”. To my mind, that is not a target. It is a statement and an overarching principle, albeit a valid and worthwhile one.

I read your previous reports on the sustainable development strategy. What were your predecessors saying in 1998? That it was necessary to establish “clear and measurable targets that are key to the success or failure of the sustainable development strategy process”. That is what your predecessors were saying, and it is a central theme in all your reports.

After reading the sustainable development strategy and knowing that you and your predecessors had always considered clear and measurable targets to be necessary, do you not think that this strategy lacks targets? Yes, there are a few, I have to admit. But they are not measurable. Does that not make your job a lot harder, especially in terms of evaluating the strategy?

[Scott Vaughan]

As you mentioned, at the Office of the Auditor General, we noted that, for a number of years, one of the priorities of the strategy was to establish clear, tangible targets that would make a difference. That is the basis for our current review to determine whether the targets included in the strategy address the concerns set out by Parliament and the legislation.

Do you have anything to add?