Environment Committee on Dec. 5th, 2017

[Nick Xenos]

—to greening government operations, yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, related to environmental impacts, okay?

[Nick Xenos]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So far you've told us that what you simply focus on is reducing greenhouse gases.

My question is, is it the intent of Treasury Board to issue broader guidelines and policies and directives on all areas related to sustainable development?

[Nick Xenos]

We can, as it says here, establish policies or directives applicable to the environment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—to the environment, so not to across-the-table development?

[Nick Xenos]

Yes. We can thus go broader, to water and waste. We can—Treasury Board can....

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—but only related to environment.

[Nick Xenos]

—to environment. That's what this says here. However, there are—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just wanted to clarify.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Next up is Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Xenos. I appreciate your testimony, and thank you for enlightening us on the nature and scope of the greening government operations outfit.

The previous witness, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, recommended that we “incorporate accountability for sustainable development results in the performance agreements of deputy heads”. It's my understanding, however, that Treasury Board can already do this and already does so. I wonder if it would not be more appropriate for Treasury Board, instead of entrenching in law a particular approach to human resources management, were to more appropriately house it within Treasury Board.

[Nick Xenos]

There are currently instruments for accountability of senior management within Treasury Board: the management accountability framework, MAF, and reporting to Parliament, etc. Those instruments can be and are used, and Treasury Board does use them in the different areas.

In terms of greening government operations, we have good interdepartmental discussions and work that we do with departments directly and through the existing reporting, whether it's through FSDS or other mechanisms. We have a pretty good relationship with those departments and a good way to get to those goals.

Treasury Board generally has various instruments dealing with senior personnel in different areas related to their accountabilities under the the different policies and administrative policies, etc.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Are those made public? Is the public made aware of the superior or the inferior performance, as the case may be, of senior government officials in relation to the sustainable development performance of their departments?

[Nick Xenos]

For example, in terms of greening government operations, we have made public how each department is doing related to the goals in the low-carbon government. We have made that public. It's open and transparent.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

Reviewing your testimony, you've indicated that one of your mandates is to drive results to meet the government's greening objectives. I note that the target was set to reduce GHG emissions of federally owned buildings and fleets by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. Does the greening of government operations centre provide for department-by-department targets?

[Nick Xenos]

Ultimately, the 40% target is what each department should shoot for, so again, we've made public how each department has progressed against that target. Again, that's on the website and available.

We're asking all departments to hit that target, but you can also look at the distribution, if you will, of the emissions. There are a few departments that have much higher emissions than others, so there might be more cost-effective ways in certain departments, or other ways. There are a lot of ways we can get there, but ultimately every department should shoot for that target.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I understand that. I just think it's much more challenging when there aren't very specific targets for each specific department to meet. Getting a check mark for going in the right direction is a little different from having a hard target that you did or didn't meet.

[Nick Xenos]

Yes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Also, it makes it much more realistic, in my estimation, that the government will achieve its 40% reduction target if it specifically knows what reductions by each department are going to be achieved.

Do you not think the Canadian public would have greater confidence in the ability to achieve that target if there were department-by-department targets?

[Nick Xenos]

Sorry to be unclear, if I'm unclear, but each department's target is 40%.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I see. Okay. That must make it very difficult for some departments and much....

[Nick Xenos]

We've seen the profile of the departments. We've been sitting down with the departments to look at an action plan to get there. We've encouraged departments to take a whole-of-department view. They should look at all of their assets, look at their investment plan going forward, and assess where the opportunities are to get to the 40%.

We've had good progress to date, I think. We're working with each department because each department has a particular situation, a particular case, and particular kinds of assets and operations. We are working with each one, though, to address that and to try to bring a solution set that's tailored to that department.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

Does your centre for greening government operations have the human resources necessary to follow through on this major task?

[Nick Xenos]

We've been resourced and set up by Treasury Board, so we are well set up, I think, to do what we are doing right now.