Environment Committee on April 1st, 2010

[Scott Vaughan]

In my opening statement, I mentioned that as one of the questions we would ask. If it is making it more transparent, we would ask how we can know if that's the case. What was the pre-existing level of transparency, and how is this making it more so? It's a relative measure. We will go back. The issue of transparency is a critical part of this strategy. We'll go back and see whether they know if it's becoming more transparent or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Monsieur Ouellet, s'il vous plaît.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today. It is very important. You can appreciate just how difficult it is for us to understand all the specifics of your work.

In the section of your paper entitled “Applying suitable practices and analytical techniques”, it reads:

Did the policy or program analysis compare environmental, social, and economic benefits and costs and identify necessary mitigating measures?

The last time you were here, I seem to recall that you tensed up or that you froze when asked about interpreting government policies. Is this statement on policy analysis not contradictory? Or do you believe that you have an opportunity to analyze policies and to express your views openly? It seems to somewhat contradict what you told us the last time you were here.

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you.

In a discussion paper, we gave examples of ways to manage the implementation of sustainable development objectives. As you noted, one of those objectives is cost-benefit analysis. One reason for using that analytical technique is to compare economic and environmental objectives. It has nothing to do with policies: it is a technique that helps us to analyze the relationship between the three targets, to compare them.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Let's come back to Ms. Duncan's question about the precautionary principle. You seem to be having trouble figuring out how you can apply it. When it comes to reviewing the legislation, do you think we should be clearer about what the precautionary principle means for sustainable development or how it is applied?

All we have now is the application of the precautionary principle. It could not be more vague.

[Scott Vaughan]

I will answer in English, if I may.

I think, as you've noted, the precautionary principle is in the act. There are specific interpretations of what the precautionary principle means. However, how the government has interpreted the scope of the strategy, from my understanding, is anchored in section 3. Section 3 is a fairly straightforward, more focused, and more narrow definition related to environmental decision-making in relation to transparency and accountability.

We will look at the act in its entirety, but the purpose of the act is anchored in section 3. There are other sections that are important. The Supreme Court has made rulings on looking at an act in its entirety. But the strategy, from what we understand, is based on the government's interpretation and understanding of section 3.

That's not a very satisfactory answer. The precautionary principle is at the heart of issues related to chemical risk management, to acceptable levels of toxicity, to weight of evidence, to how much you know, and to the risk of irreversible damage. Within that, climate change, for example, is one of these critical issues.

This is one of the objectives. So we would look to the government to see how they will make those links within the overall act.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I have read a lot of documents on sustainable development from the U.K. It seemed to me that every time, they were a lot more specific than we are. For example, when they talked about recycling, it was perfectly clear. When they talked about greenhouse gases, there again, it was clear.

Are your assessments somewhat vague because of the current government's lack of policies? Is it simply due to the fact that you are not at the same point as they are in the U.K.?

[Scott Vaughan]

We identified examples in various European countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and even examples in the United States and Canada where real progress is being made. So progress is possible in terms of sustainable development. As you said, many people see these systems as models for other countries.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

But it is not—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up.

Your turn, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have no questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll go to Ms. Duncan from the Liberals. It's so confusing today. It's like April Fool's Day.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I thank the chair, and I thank the witnesses.

I guess I'm struggling with the fact that we're having a review of a review that has yet to take place. That is, we are having a review of very little. As a scientist, I think that very little will come from very little.

Over and over again, we talk about evidence-based approaches. You have very little evidence to go on today. I guess I'm surprised, with the pressing environmental issues we face today, that we actually have time to have a pre-meeting.

The government must set out a strategy for meeting its targets. I'm wondering if you have done a general review of the document, and I'd like to know if the strategies represent a commitment to change the status quo.

[Scott Vaughan]

Well, yes.

First of all, let me say again that I know how busy you all are, and I wish that we were further along in our analysis. We received it 15 days ago. I wish I could say more than we are right now, but we're....

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I understand.

[Scott Vaughan]

My understanding of the programs in this strategy is that they are an assemblage of existing programs. There are no new initiatives in the programs that are announced; the strategy says this is the first time that all these programs have been brought together into one single place.

Are there new programs? No. Is this then an articulation of the status quo? My answer would be yes, at least on the presentation of the programs. The upfront part of it, the planning process and expenditure management, are different, but as far as the existing programs, yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, thank you.

The government has stated that FSDS increases transparency because it brings together its initiatives and priorities in one place.

In your view, does this initial review make the process more transparent?

[Scott Vaughan]

Again, we will look at this very carefully. That is in section 3. The purpose of the act is to make it more transparent, so we would expect, as I said in the opening statement, the government to first of all clarify the existing level of transparency of these programs and how these are being augmented because they are now presented in this.

There may be a difference between greater transparency and greater comprehensiveness. I would read those differently. There are different international obligations on defining transparency. Canada has signed up for different obligations and international instruments related to transparency, so there is a way one can measure transparency. We will go back and look at that within the context of whether this is more.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

Does it explain how different environmental challenges and federal programs are prioritized, and which ones are prioritized?

[Scott Vaughan]

To my knowledge--and I'll turn to my colleague--there is not a statement of how the programs are prioritized. This is a presentation of existing programs. There is not a ranking or a hierarchy. It's a listing of important programs in a single document.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So this is not prioritized?

[Scott Vaughan]

I would probably defer...and you may want to ask the department again.

My understanding is that they have chosen four objectives and they've put together the programs that exist at the federal level related to those four objectives. I don't see a sense of priority or a ranking or a hierarchy in which those priorities are reached.

It goes back then, as section 3 also says, to environmental decision-making. To me, environmental decision-making is different from the presentation of programs. It would be the process by which the decision is made and what the trade-offs, the priorities, are. This is not a static presentation but rather the process by which these decisions come about.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

You raised the issue of missing 18 departments. I was going to mention Treasury Board and Finance Canada, that this is in your initial review. Can you share with us any other concerns you have?

[Scott Vaughan]

No. As I say, we are still going through the review. We'll do it very, very carefully.

I think one of the questions--which isn't a concern but a point of clarity--is the definition of “integration” that is used in the strategy. I will also ask what “more” means in terms of transparency and accountability.

I also think it may be more useful, for those departments that are not noted or mentioned now, such as Finance and others, for the committee to ask what that means for them as this moves forward.

I'm not guessing that because they're not mentioned they don't have to do anything, because they do have to comply with what's in the strategy. The question is what the scope of that compliance is.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Hawn, do you have anything? Mr. Jean?