Environment Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I am intrigued by the change of subject matter from the tax field and Treasury Board into the environment field. What did you find was your biggest challenge, if I could put it that way, when you were the associate deputy minister? What was it that was most challenging for you to become acclimatized to, to use an environmental pun, and how do you feel you overcame that?

[Bob Hamilton]

A couple of things struck me my first time through environment. I guess the first would be the amount of science within the department. If I think of the Department of Finance, there are a lot of economic and financial aspects to that, and I'm quite familiar with them. As I came into environment, just trying to understand the various science policies and issues, without being an expert in the domain, was an interesting activity, on both the meteorological side and the regulatory side. Just being exposed to that degree of scientific activity—I like science, but I am by no means an expert—was a change for me. This was one thing that struck me.

Another thing that has been true in every place that I've worked, but is even more true at environment is the amount of integration between the different parts of the department. One part would be working away on something that related to another branch of the department. I thought that was quite interesting. It's there everywhere you work. There are always linkages between different parts of an organization, but I found that at environment there were a lot more, such as the international work, the science that supported the regulations, the enforcement aspect. It was interesting to view from the top how those pieces fit together within the department and how they fit together with different departments around town. For example, we work closely with fisheries, transport, and other departments, depending on the particular environmental issues. I'd say that those two things struck me as quite different.

The final thing would be the federal-provincial dimension. Certainly in the world of tax policy, while there has to be integration between federal and provincial systems, I'd say the federal force is a bit more dominant than in the environmental area where there's a lot more provincial involvement and responsibility.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

May I assume that those two years as associate deputy minister were filled with foot-high briefing books and that you've absorbed those lessons and have had a little less difficulty now that you're back at the department, keeping in mind, of course, that science is always advancing? Do you feel that you've mastered those things sufficiently?

[Bob Hamilton]

I was with you until you said “mastered”. I don't feel as if I've mastered them, but I'm certainly coming back to a lot more familiar and comfortable feeling with the subject matter. There's always something to learn in every file. As the deputy minister, you don't get to probe into every issue in as much depth as you'd like, but I feel that those two years of experience gave me a familiarity with the issues. When things come forward, I at least know enough about them to start the process of figuring out what we need to do, whether it's policy or what have you.

The experience on the Canada-U.S. front was helpful for me in linking our regulatory system with that of another jurisdiction and thinking about some of the regulatory challenges from a different perspective.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On the Canada-U.S. job, were there environmental regulations that were before the council while you were involved with it?

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes, in December 2009 or 2010, I forget which, we came out with an action plan with 29 items. It addressed key sectors of the economy: agriculture, transport, etc. There was a component on the environment that had to do with GHG emissions from autos and some rail issues, so yes, there was an environmental component to that work as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Gentlemen, my congratulations to both of you on your appointments.

I am going to ask about the vision related to specific departments, and my questions will be technical in nature.

Mr. Hamilton, it is well known in the ozone science community that the long-time manager of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre is no longer in that position. Yet, at a meeting of this committee on December 13, 2011, the science and technology director, Dr. Charles Lin, stated, “The manager is being transitioned to the Meteorological Service of Canada.” I'm wondering why Environment Canada has not followed through on the commitment made to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Rempel, on a point of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, at the beginning of this meeting you read the entirety of Standing Order 111, which pertains to the scope of questions that are allowed at this meeting with regard to questioning witnesses about their order in council appointments, including qualifications.

I believe my colleague's question is with regard to policy and upcoming policy and is outside the bounds of the Standing Order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe that even one of the recommended questions from the Library of Parliament is regarding vision for the department.

Monitoring ozone is one of the most important functions of Environment Canada, and I absolutely think it's on point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Even if I agreed with the suggestion that a particular individual's vision for the department is relevant—and I'm not sure that I do because it's really the government's vision that these gentlemen are tasked to implement—the question comes down to why the department didn't take a specific action. It has nothing to do with vision.

I can't imagine that would justify the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Are there any other questions?

Ms. Duncan, on the point of order.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It is on the point of order to respond to Mr. Woodworth, and then I'm hoping to get on to another question if my other question will not be answered.

It is about vision. I'm asking why it hasn't been followed through and will it be followed through, which would be vision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Okay.

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Pursuant to the Standing Order, under which this committee meeting is occurring today, perhaps if my colleague is looking to ask a question about Mr. Hamilton's vision for the department, she would ask about Mr. Hamilton's vision for the department, rather than specific policy initiatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I think we've had enough discussion on the point of order. I would agree, and I will reread O'Brien and Bosc.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Not in its entirety. I don't want to put anybody to sleep.

If the committee decides to call an appointee, the questions must be limited by the Standing Orders examining the individual's “qualifications and competence to perform the duties”.

I will rule that the questioning, in spite of it being good questioning maybe for another meeting, has nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate.

I encourage the questions to be answered in that light.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Latourelle, if I may, the concern is that Parks Canada is facing a $29-million budget cut. That's difficult.

Again, this is about vision. How do you plan to protect ecological integrity in terms of monitoring when scientists are being cut?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Rempel, on a point of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think I've been through this several times now about the scope of the discussion here today. I look at this essentially as a job interview, where we're asking our appointees about their qualifications for the position.

My colleague opposite has just asked a question that has many falsehoods in it.

I could spend the entirety of my point of order discussing how we have invested in Parks Canada over the last several years of our mandate, how we've increased the size of Parks Canada by over 50%, how we've increased the budget of Parks Canada, and how we've increased funding for science and technology. But since the purpose of the meeting today is to follow what's under Standing Order 111, I would ask my colleague to keep her comments to that scope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Duncan, in response to the point of order.