Environment Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Dr. David Boyd]

I'll take a different perspective from the earlier witness. It is really useful, and this is a good context, to look at Canada's performance benchmarked against other wealthy western industrialized nations. There is an independent, non-partisan, highly respected think tank based in Ottawa called the Conference Board of Canada, which every year compares 17 different wealthy industrialized nations in terms of their performance on a number of metrics in the areas of economy, innovation, health, and the environment. For the past 15 years, for as long as the Conference Board has been doing this work, Canada has finished in 15th place out of 17 wealthy western industrialized countries, so that predates the Federal Sustainable Development Act. That covers several different governments in Canada, so in terms of the big picture, our environmental performance is not as good as it should be for a country with such tremendous potential.

In terms of the specific issue that was being discussed about strategic environmental assessments, I would say that the problem in Canada, which has been identified by the commissioner in numerous audits, is that this cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessments, because it doesn't have the force of law, is not being followed. There is actually a fairly poor compliance rate with that cabinet directive. That actually raises an issue, which hopefully your committee will be studying in the future, and that is the revision of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I believe—and hopefully I'll get a chance to revisit you—that the law should be revised to make strategic environmental assessments mandatory so that we actually can improve our compliance with that.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You still have a minute and a bit. You are welcome to share it with someone else, if you want.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Ed, do you have anything you want to add?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, I'd be glad to ask one question.

Mr. Botham, you used a word when we heard from you that your department is responsible for “championing”—I think that is the word you used—the sustainable development assessment process under the cabinet directive.

Is that what you said?

[Richard Botham]

If I did, I misspoke. What I was meaning to say was that, within the department, I am the champion for that strategy.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We have struggled at this committee to try to determine why it is that so few proposals that were developed within the different departments, and so few cabinet submissions, went through the rigour of that assessment process. We were trying to establish the reason for that. I think it's clear from Ms. Gelfand's testimony that there was no one specific to blame. There was no direction that there not be a compliance with the cabinet directive. It was just that these things fell through the cracks.

Now I'm hearing that finance may have had someone who was responsible specifically for championing these assessments. Can you tell us why those assessments weren't followed as rigorously as the expectation might have been, not only from this one but from previous governments?

[Richard Botham]

I can't comment on the practices of other departments or how that is implemented through the cabinet paper process. I can comment on the practice in our department. We have had a champion of sustainable development as long as the act has been in place. We have always had training. We have always had, as a component of our advice to the Minister of Finance in the budget process, a requirement to conduct an SEA. An SEA is conducted for all of the policies and proposals that are provided to the minister in the context of the budget process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm so sorry to have to cut in, but we are into seven minutes. I know we will want to continue on that thought, probably with more questioning, but I have to cut that line of questioning off at the moment and move on to the next questioner, which is Mr. Fisher. Hopefully we'll get back to more of that.

Thank you.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, gentlemen, for being here.

As always, thanks, Ms. Gelfand, for being here. It's always great to see you.

Mr. Fast went right exactly where I wanted to go. I was going to ask the question of Mr. Linklater, because the PCO is supposed to work with other departments to ensure the cabinet directive is followed. Then Mr. Botham said that he is responsible for championing cabinet directive.

I'm a positive person, but it's getting frustrating. This has been a long-standing issue, and I get the sense that Mr. Botham thinks maybe this is working or this is happening better than it is, from what we've heard from other witnesses.

Other than laying blame or taking us too far down this exact same road we've talked about, what can we do? I'll ask both gentlemen. Is there a way we can ensure that we get to the point? I don't know whether it's some of the other things we've talked about in the last few weeks about giving extra powers to the commissioner, or some of the things Mr. Boyd said. Where do we go? How do we get to the point that we...?

I read this:

A committee of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, consisting of a Chairperson and other members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, shall have oversight of the development and implementation of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy..

That's section 6 of our act. Then there's this statement here that says that there's no information found about this committee at all. Does that committee exist? Is it out there working? Are we all just spinning our wheels and not making any progress? From where I sit, this is getting very frustrating.

I would look to both of you, and maybe even the commissioner. What can we do as a committee to make sure we do better?

I'm sorry I've taken so long with the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I guess it's really what's in place? What do we need to do?

[Les Linklater]

In terms of the cabinet structure, as I referenced in my remarks, this government has put in place the cabinet committee on the environment, climate change, and energy. That is the committee the sustainable development strategy comes through. I don't think that's breaking any cabinet confidences. There is a committee in place that looks at that at the policy level. The full cabinet ratifies all policy proposals that are approved in principle by the policy committee.

In terms of committee structure, while it may not be clear on the Internet that this is one specific item that comes to that committee, there are any number of agenda items that come through from sponsoring ministers, whether it's the Minister of Natural Resources, or of Environment and Climate Change, or even Indigenous and Northern Affairs. There is a robust agenda. The federal sustainable development strategy has been considered by that committee. When it is finalized, following the public consultation period, it will come back to that committee for approval in principle and referral to full cabinet.

That is the committee structure in place to deal with sustainable development issues in the strictest sense. In terms of the other committees that are administered at the policy level, such as inclusive growth and opportunities and innovation, there may well be sustainable economic issues that come through, and social policy issues through diversity and inclusion, where there are elements of economic, social, and environmental policy that are considered in the recommendations that are put forward by ministers to their colleagues.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay, I see the commissioner....

Again, I'm still looking for some suggestions on what we can do with the draft to make things better.

[Julie Gelfand, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development]

If I may, I think we need to separate out the Federal Sustainable Development Act from the cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessment.

I've reported to you that in my last chapter on the strategic environmental assessment tool cabinet directive, we found that five out of 1,700 proposals that went to ministers in four departments had received a preliminary scan. We also found that 110 out of 250 memorandums to cabinet had gotten that scan. So we know that this tool, which has been around for a long time, is not particularly well used in those four departments.

A few years back, we audited the Department of Finance. They did a better job, so they as a department were using the tool better. Last year, when we issued our report, Privy Council Office issued a memorandum to analysts to ask them to be sure to follow the strategic environmental assessment and implement it. We then audited it a year later—so this was probably in 2014—and we found that proposals that went to ministers were still not being utilized.

Privy Council Office, with all due respect, has a big role in enforcing the strategic environmental assessment directive to make sure that everything that goes, particularly to cabinet, has been vetted through a strategic environmental assessment. That is a separate tool from the Federal Sustainable Development Act. We are looking at two different things. I want to make that really clear.

The proposals that Mr. Boyd brought forward are very specific things that you can change in the act, and he indicated in his presentation that his idea was to make the strategic environmental assessment tool—this thing—a legal obligation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

If you recall, when I presented I simply suggested that we make the strategic environmental assessment tool a legal part of something. I didn't tell you which act. Technically, you might be able to put it in the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer and Mr. Amos is nodding his head.

Basically Mr. Boyd and I are saying take that strategic environmental assessment directive and make it an obligation. Whether you do that through the Environmental Assessment Act or through your recommendations on the Federal Sustainable Development Act, that is up to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You're out of time on that one.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That was the best clarification and explanation that I've been given yet. Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Excellent. It's very helpful.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to pick up where Mr. Fisher was.

Good to see you, Mr. Boyd, again. I think the mustache might be new, though. I didn't recognize you at first.

I very much share Mr. Fisher's concerns. I get the sense that it may be a question of culture within government. If this is a cabinet directive and has been a long-standing cabinet directive that everything that passes through has to have this assessment, and the snapshot that the commissioner audited found that the compliance rate was a little less than 0.3%, I don't know how anyone can see that as a tool that is anything other than a joke. That 0.3%...obviously it's something that you just used by accident sometimes.

As to the memorandums to cabinet, that feels like a Yes, Minister scenario where you have 250 notes to my present colleague, Mr. Fast, and only 110 out of 250 were passing through this environmental lens in describing.... Is it a question of culture?

I'll put the question to you, Mr. Linklater, and you may not be comfortable with this. Should there be some consequence when we are failing to achieve this cabinet directive?

[Les Linklater]

I think, as the commissioner mentioned, the results that you're referring to relate to four departments, and as I said in my opening remarks, it's clear that there is more work that needs to be done.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's a bit of an understatement, wouldn't you say? With respect, 0.3% compliance, I know it's just four departments but that's the snapshot that we took. It would be hard to argue that we just got the worst four departments. Maybe, but “more work to be done”...? If my kid came home with that report card, those wouldn't be the first words out of my mouth.

[Les Linklater]

I think there are a number of tools that the government is moving forward with that are going to improve the scorecard, if you will.

I had mentioned as well the cabinet committee on agenda, results, and communications that has been established to focus on delivering outcomes for Canadians. One of the key thematics and priorities of the government that has been articulated is the environment and climate change, and we know that departments are collectively working to develop a results framework on that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay, so here's a good example then, because I like to take this into real-world examples rather than just the machinations of government, as enjoyable as that conversation always is.

When the recent federal budget came through, I imagine the green lens was passed through. I want to just take a couple of examples to understand this. You mentioned Paris, and you mentioned the Vancouver declaration. Did the decision from cabinet, the decision from Finance, to continue the subsidy to the oil and gas sector pass through this lens that you're talking about? Did it pass through an environmental assessment lens, an environmental impact kind of lens?

[Les Linklater]

I'm not able to comment on that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Botham, as the champion for sustainability within the department, that's a choice. It's an environmental and economic choice that we talk about wedding these things together. Was that question raised?

[Richard Botham]

There are really two elements, I think, in the question you're posing. One is in respect of the advice developed by the department and provided to the minister. Then the second is the outcome, the government's position. I'm not prepared to comment on the second, but I can provide you with a view on the first.

As I mentioned in response to one of the questions, all of the proposals, all of the measures for which we provide advice to the Minister of Finance, do pass through and are subject to a strategical environmental assessment.