Environment Committee on Dec. 5th, 2017

[Julie Gelfand]

Whenever you evaluate a project in Canada, and whenever it goes to cabinet, there's usually a socio-economic lens that's put on almost every project that is brought forward. The whole purpose of the strategic environmental assessment tool is to include a third lens. I would argue that most projects are always looked at from a socio-economic perspective, but they don't usually include the third aspect, which is the environmental perspective.

If you're going to look from a sustainable development angle, you should be looking at social, economic, and environmental costs, and that was the whole point of bringing forward the strategic environmental assessment tool.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

You should also look at benefits as well. It's not all costs.

The term “impacts” to me is a negative term, and we often confuse environmental change with environmental impact. For example, in commercial forestry, a mature forest is converted to a young forest, and young forests have certain ecological advantages, if you will, over mature forests. Is environmental change automatically a negative, in your view?

[Julie Gelfand]

Certain ecosystems require fire, for example, to continue to grow, so environmental change is not necessarily a negative impact.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay.

I'll go back to the location of the responsibility. It is a great concern that the responsible minister is the environment minister. I could see there being a lot of tension around the cabinet table if the minister plunks down a negative report on, let's say, the Department of Natural Resources, a true development department.

Obviously, we can't describe what's going to happen around the cabinet table, but can you see that being an area of tension between project proponents, development departments, and the environment minister's office?

[Julie Gelfand]

In terms of the federal sustainable development strategy, my understanding, and you'd have to ask the department this specifically, is that it will be the coordinator of the development of the federal sustainable development strategy.

You're asking me about specific projects and about environmental impact assessments. I'm looking right now today at the federal sustainable development strategy. The role of Environment Canada will be to gather that together. I know that other people have made the recommendation, and it is the case in many other countries—several other countries—that the development of the FSDS is located in a more central agency that reports directly to the president, prime minister, or whomever it may be.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

It's always a pleasure to have you and your gang here. We really appreciate your work.

I see a lot of consistency in the recommendations you're bringing forward, Commissioner, as you testified more than a year ago, when I wasn't on the committee.

There are a number of things that I find really odd about this bill. It was an opportunity, in fact, to update the law so that the departments and agencies have to assess based on sustainable development, and not the narrow factor of environment. Yet, even in the bill and remaining in the existing act, we still have this inconsistency. Sometimes we're looking at environment and sometimes we're looking at sustainable development, so I appreciate your bringing that to our attention.

I think they should have started over again, but I've made a number of proposals for change. Unfortunately, we can't propose some of the changes you're recommending, because they're not in the bill.

One of the things I find odd is that this bill recommends that Treasury Board be authorized to issue guidelines, and yet section 6 of the act appoints the Privy Council to provide oversight but no power to issue guidelines.

I've noted your previous sensible recommendation that the cabinet directive be entrenched in this act to try to connect the two. It remains a mystery to me that the minister is responsible for sustainable development policy for a whole entity and yet the Privy Council is saying that, for any policy, any directive, any spending, or any decision, you have to do a sustainable development assessment.

Do you think there is a need to take a second look and to bring those two together to have consistency?

[Julie Gelfand]

I have recommended that the committee consider entrenching the current cabinet directive into the act, because right now that cabinet directive is really not being followed, as you've heard me say almost every year since I've been coming to this committee. As I indicated to Mr. Sopuck, there is always a socio-economic analysis of every proposal that goes to cabinet. There is also a gender analysis that's done. But the environmental analysis is not mandatory; it's just if they want to or if there are significant impacts.

I think taking the opportunity in this act to entrench that cabinet directive would help balance out the socio-economic perspectives and include and obligate departments to bring forward an environmental perspective to it, and that's why we recommended that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

That is an interesting comment because a few years ago a number of us brought a case, which eventually went to the Supreme Court—and that was the Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport)—where it was proven, which was my argument, that a cabinet directive is enforceable. So you might want to rethink that, and people might want to be noting that a cabinet directive is an enforceable law.

One of the things I note in the act is that the minister can make regulations. Actually, it would be the cabinet, I presume, that would make the regulations.

[Julie Gelfand]

It's Treasury Board, I think.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That may be one way that the cabinet directive can be made binding in law, clearly, through regulations in the act. In all these years that we've had this act, no regulations have ever been issued, so that might be a simple way of addressing this if we can't make the amendments to the act.

I want to thank you for noting some of the missing elements in the principles. The justice minister has now said that the UNDRIP will be binding on all decisions of the government, so it's very critical that it also be specifically referenced in here.

Unfortunately, because the government did not come forward to change the provision that appoints a Department of the Environment official to provide the guidance, we can't propose an amendment by the rules of amendment, but certainly that is something you identified previously. When the committee reviewed this act previously, all the other nations seemed to have gone in that direction, so it's a good recommendation. Unfortunately, our hands are tied because of the rules of the statutory process. Hopefully we can have some additional amendments and shift that over.

I think the overall problem remains that, if the environment department is providing the direction, then it will also be seen as this being just about environmental assessment. That shift probably would send the message that when we do a strategy we have to go beyond environment, and we also have to do the socio-economic, but I think until that happens....

You seem to be indicating that, but you continue to make the same very sensible, constructive recommendations. Unfortunately, I think our hands are going to be tied on what amendments we can bring forward. I'd welcome any recommendations within the framework we have of how we might do that. One option might be through regulations that the cabinet issues.

[Julie Gelfand]

Unfortunately, I can't answer that specific question, but I do want to indicate that it's not all countries that put their sustainable development work in central agencies. Some of them put it in the department of finance, for example. Many put it in the environment department. If you leave it in the environment department, I think it becomes an environmental strategy. If you put it in a central agency or with the minister of finance, you could potentially have a true sustainable development act.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner. It's always nice to see you.

Those are great rubber boots, by the way.

[Julie Gelfand]

Thank you.

My apologies, I forgot my shoes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[A voice]

No apologies needed.

[Julie Gelfand]

I am a former biologist.

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

When we studied the act, we heard testimony that we should establish an advocate for Canada's future generations, and Environment and Climate Change Canada said, “You already do that. You already are tasked with looking after future generations and their needs.”

I understand that the government is considering strengthening your mandate. Could you tell us a bit about how you feel, or if you feel you already represent the needs of future generations?

[Julie Gelfand]

At the national level, Canada is the only country that has a commissioner of environment and sustainable development located in the office of the supreme audit institution. There are seven or eight other commissioners of environment and sustainable development at a national level, and they are not found in the audit office.

It's true that in the definition in the Auditor General Act, there is a clause that says that taking care of the needs of future generations is within our mandate. When you're in an audit office, however, you must stick to audit methodology. You must remain objective and deal only with the facts of the audits that you do, so there are advantages and disadvantages to the model. In terms of taking care of the needs of future generations, I would suggest that I could do that by trying to select really good audits that deal with that, but oftentimes, I can't give you an opinion based on 30-odd years of working in this area, because I am in the audit office. There are pros and cons.

The commissioners of environment and sustainable development who are outside the audit office, however, have the disadvantage that it's much easier to say, “Oh, that person's just a greenie, and we can disregard whatever he or she says,” whereas when you're listening to me talk about an audit, I am effectively the auditor general talking about that audit. It's very difficult to dismiss it because we use the exact same methodology as the auditor general.

That was a long and complicated answer to say that it's not clear and that there are both advantages and disadvantages to having the commissioner's office in the audit office. Does that help?

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

It does, but could you be specific about what, in your opinion, we might be able to do as a committee to strengthen that role? If we understand that the government is considering strengthening your role, give me one way we might do that.

[Julie Gelfand]

I'm not aware that the government is considering that. That's news to me.

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

Okay.