Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 4 - Evidence - December 2, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 2, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:45 a.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Ethel Cochrane (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
Welcome Ms. May and Mr. Toner. We are pleased to have you with us. I understand that you will speak on some of the gaps that Ms. Johanne Gélinas, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, outlined in her latest report.
Please proceed.
Ms. Elizabeth May, Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada: I wish to thank the committee for taking on the One- Tonne Challenge report and for looking at the issue of implementation gaps. I will present the big picture and some concepts, and then Mr. Toner will give some specifics.
The Sierra Club of Canada has been active in Canada since 1969. On the topic of sustainable development, we have been through all the iterations and have been involved from the beginning. We were heavily involved in the process that led to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, starting with the work on the Brundtland report and then on the preliminary work from 1990 to 1992 preparing for the UN Earth Summit. We have tracked Canadian progress of all levels of government on the Rio commitments in our annual RIO Report Card. If your staff is interested, all years are still available on our website. Feel free to contact us for further information.
We were pleased to find that our monitoring of Canadian government progress toward sustainable development was favourably noted by the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. Someone has noticed what we have done all these years.
In terms of what the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development brought to you on the implementation gap, which we call an implementation gap between rhetoric and reality, we agree with Ms. Gélinas. I will be blunt. The reason for the gap is that at a basic level key decision-makers, whether political or civil service, do not actually have a clue about the nature of the problem or the urgency of addressing it. I am being blunt because I think that is what you would like.
It is not that they do not think that these ideas are nice in the abstract, and it is not that they do not embrace them as some sort of motherhood statement, but it does not feel urgent. The 1987 report of the Brundtland commission, ``Our Common Future,'' which is more or less our Bible for this topic, may not have invented the words, but they put the words ``sustainable development'' front and centre for Canada. This report was accepted in 1987 by the Canadian government at the UN. The Canadian government played an active role in promoting the Brundtland commission. We could get into the definition of sustainable development, but I like the definition that is found in the text of ``Our Common Future.'' It advocated sustainable development but not in a vacuum. It advocated sustainable development in response to what the report identified as multiple crises. It identified a crisis that was an environmental crisis in terms of what we are doing to the biosphere, a development crisis in terms of the inequities between the wealthy and the very poor, and also a crisis of militarism, a diversion of resources to building up the military and a failure to secure peace.
The military crisis was dropped off the agenda of sustainable development when the United Nations General Assembly reviewed the Brundtland report and took up its recommendation that there be a 20-years post-Stockholm major summit, what became known as the Earth Summit, but was unwilling to take on the military piece. It became an environment and development agenda.
The statistics that the Brundtland report mustered in 1987 were worrying then. The threat of climate change, in particular, was flagged in the Brundtland report. None of these trend lines have become anything but more worrying in the last 25 years, yet we are not seeing recognition that the issue is urgent or real.
I refer to it as a case of cognitive dissidence. It is like being told you will be healthier if you remember to eat bran in the morning, but you do not want to; or your dentist says, ``By the way, you really should floss,'' and you say, ``I absolutely should,'' but you do not. You can hear it, but you do not believe it.
The place where this failure is most serious is the threat of climate change. If the governments of Canada actually took climate change seriously, addressing this threat would become an overarching principle for all of society. The government would be marshalling resources with a seriousness of purpose not seen since Canada reorganized its economy and society to confront the challenges of World War II.
The lack of implementation on all these issues is a problem of political will. Political will is a function of understanding that the threats are real and urgent. For the most part, the system and the powers that be do not understand the threat or its urgency.
Again by analogy, this is similar to saying, ``We should ensure that all of our buildings have proper fire codes, and that we know where the fire exits are.'' You have a different appreciation of where the fire exits are when the building is on fire than when it is an abstract problem. That is even more of a problem on many of the environmental issues. Most human beings recognize they do not want to be in a building when it is on fire. I do not think that our political hierarchies, the powers that be or society writ large has yet embraced the fact that climate change is a bigger threat to the planet than any terrorism threat. It is the biggest security threat on the face of the planet and yet we act as though it is a secondary concern.
Why do policy makers not understand the threat? I will list these things in bullet points, because there is so much to cover. Part of the problem is that our scientific capacity and information has been compromised by budget cuts that have been particularly noticeable since the Earth Summit in 1992. Programs to monitor environmental change have been eliminated. Research stations have been shut down. The state-of-the-environment report has been discontinued and if we tried to resurrect it, I doubt we could find the data to write the report in the level of detail that we had when it was being prepared in the early 1990s. We have a lack of internal government science. There are also vested interests. These are often underestimated. It is as though everyone must want to do the right thing, and yet there are some powerful elements of society that have vested interests that prevent moving ahead on some of these files.
Then there is the value-neutral reality that large systems resist change. There is a level of inertia in any large system, political, corporate or societal, that is leery of change and, therefore, inertia is a problem. There is also a political sense that environmental issues are, by definition, peripheral. Further amplifying these tendencies is the nature of the structure of government, silo mentalities and turf wars. Within the public service, I wish to identify a specific problem that I think is real, the managerial culture of civil service. It is something that some former civil servant mandarins, such as Mr. Gordon Ritchie, find distressing, that is, moving people around from one department to another with the assumption that if they were a decent assistant deputy minister, ADM, at Public Works and Government Services Canada, they could be a decent ADM at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or they could go over to Environment Canada and it does not much matter.
Some departments have resisted this and have an esprit de corps, a continuation of their culture and a good institutional memory as a result. The Canadian Foreign Service and the trade negotiators never move around.
It was striking to me after the Earth Summit. Canada marshalled, in civil service terms, basically an A-team for Rio. They were a phenomenal group of civil servants who negotiated the Rio Earth Summit agreements on behalf of Canada. Within a year, none were assigned to those files. They were cast to the four winds.
By contrast, the crowd of people for Canada, another A-team, who negotiated for Canada through the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations are still there. The trade negotiators stay with their files, know what was intended by the negotiations and have a sense of purpose to move forward. That does not happen on the Environment Canada side.
I also identify a cultural shift of me-first-ism that is society-wide of personal ambition in some cases overriding the public good.
Turning to the subject of closing the gaps, one thing that needs to be done urgently is something of a massive tutorial for which this committee's work is hugely helpful. You can identify that these are not issues that can wait for a day when we have time; that we have made commitments and they must be met, not because failing to live up to our agreements makes us look bad in the world community. That is one factor, but it pales in comparison to the reality that the reason we must move forward is we are in huge trouble if we do not because the changes we are effecting on the biosphere are unforgiving, and in many cases irreversible.
The challenge to sustainable development needs to be the central organizing principle of the Government of Canada. Mr. Toner will pick up on this, but Environment Canada needs to be a source of credible science, and actual environmental advocacy. It is the Department of Environment; it should not be the department of sustainable development. The department of sustainable development, in effect, should be the cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office; the organizing central purpose of government. Environment Canada needs to advocate for the environment. That is the way the system is designed. If it does not do that, no one does.
Finance Canada has a large role to play, and has basically been a barrier up to now. It has not embraced the opportunities that exist in ecological or fiscal reform, and continues to subsidize industrial development. Talk about cognitive dissidence. We understand that we have important climate-change targets and yet we continue to expand the fossil fuel sector. They are completely non-aligned as priorities.
We hope that Finance Canada will embrace the opportunities that are there, and learn from the European experience where some of these measures have been extremely effective at low cost.
Excuse me for having presented a great deal in a very superficial manner. The subject matter is critical. I will now turn over the microphone to Professor Toner.
Mr. Glen Toner, Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, As an Individual: Thank you very much for inviting us before your committee at this important time in the history of the sustainable development implementation project. The third wave of this project is gathering steam.
My perspective on this issue has been shaped by my experience as a participant-observer. As a scholar, I have published 12 articles on this topic, monitoring the history and evolution of the Canadian engagement with sustainable development. Unlike most academics, I am also a participant. I have been involved with much of the Canadian government's response to the challenge laid out in 1987 in ``Our Common Future.''
For example, from 1989 to 1991, I was a senior policy adviser to the deputy minister of Environment Canada during the Mulroney government's green plan. From 1994 to 1995, I chaired the advisory committee for A Guide to Green Government.
In 1996, I created the advisory panel for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I continue to sit on that committee.
Since 1996-97, I have been an adviser to Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada on their sustainable development strategies.
Since 1999, I have taught in a number of departments, a capacity building course which I created. It is entitled, ``Welcome to the Future, Implementing Sustainable Development in the 21st Century.'' I also teach a number of these courses at Carleton University in the School of Public Policy and Administration, which is where I teach.
My comments today will focus on the challenges of institutionalizing a sustainable development orientation and practice within the Government of Canada. They build on a recent chapter entitled, ``Governance for Sustainable Development: Next Stage Institutional and Policy Innovations,'' which was published in a 2004-05 edition of How Ottawa Spends.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Toner, could you slow down a little bit? Our interpreters are having difficulty getting your words down.
Mr. Toner: My observations today are extracted from this article, a copy of which your clerk has.
Sustainable development is a ``change process'' which has experienced two waves of energy in Canada, both of which were followed by implementation efforts that lost steam.
The first wave was represented by the 1990 green plan. It generated much excitement for a few years but did not survive the subsequent program review. It generated a lot of innovative ideas, programs and initiatives around the time of the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and pushed Canada to a position of international leadership at the time.
The second wave of sustainable development institutionalization was represented by the emergence of A Guide to Green Government in 1995, and the creation of significant new institutional capacity. The key changes were the creation of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development and the legal requirement that departments develop, implement and update sustainable development strategies.
The third wave is represented by the sustainable economy initiative, currently being promoted by the new Minister of the Environment, Stéphane Dion. Quoting the October 2004 Speech from the Throne:
Our quality of life today, and the legacy we bequeath to future generations, demands fundamental change in the way in which we think about the environment.
The Government will work with its partners to build sustainable development systematically into decision making.
Minister Dion has articulated the main challenge as being the need to fix the decision-making system of the Government of Canada. This is not new. Indeed, it is precisely the same diagnosis and solution articulated in the green plan and A Guide to Green Government. Yet, the implementation experience that followed both the green plan and A Guide to Green Government cautions us that the cabinet and bureaucratic decision-making systems will be difficult to change.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the result has been a condition characterized by successive commissioners as an ``implementation gap'' and a ``leadership gap.'' This condition has caught the attention of your committee.
The Canadian sustainable development implementation project is the major ``change process'' challenge of our generation. It is a challenge to governments, corporations and communities. Climate change, depleted fisheries, urban sprawl, contaminated sites, inefficient and unhealthy traffic congestion, disappearing species, respiratory problems and toxic emissions are just indicators of the unsustainable condition we face in the early 21st century.
The process of turning 20th-century governance and industrial systems on to a sustainable path will be neither quick nor easy. Yet, I submit, despite the barriers to change that exist in the system we are making some progress and can do better. To do better, much more will have to be done to overcome the systemic barriers to good decision making that Minister Dion acknowledges haunts the current implementation process.
Our focus today is on the federal government and the slow change process that has many frustrated — and the minister motivated. I will address first the internal government-decision-making system; and, second, the environment- economy relationship, in terms of both the barriers that research has identified and the opportunities that exist to overcome the barriers.
With respect to cabinet, the first barrier is that cabinet decisions are not viewed through a sustainable development lens. To achieve their goals, Minister Dion and Prime Minister Martin will need all ministers to think through the sustainable development implications of government policies. The government should turn the current Ad Hoc Committee of Cabinet on Environment and Sustainable Development into a permanent cabinet committee. This would be a very important signal to both ministers and officials. The Mulroney government had an environment cabinet committee during the green plan. It helped provide a sustainable development orientation to cabinet decision making.
As to the second barrier, one enormous problem with the Canadian implementation effort has been the lack of ,or confusion around, leadership at the executive level. The Chrétien government intentionally chose a highly decentralized model built around departmental sustainable development strategies. Experience has shown that the lack of an overall Government of Canada sustainable development strategy has been a major barrier to change, and has left individual departmental strategies and their policy and program initiatives disaggregated, uncoordinated and incoherent.
The government should create a Government of Canada sustainable development strategy. This would give departments a sense of what they are part of, and how they fit in and contribute. This strategy should excite Canadians with a vision of what a sustainable Canada would like a generation from now, and allow industry and citizens to see how they can participate to shape a sustainable future.
With respect to the central agencies and the third barrier, Prime Minister Martin will not achieve his Speech from the Throne goals unless his department, the Office of the Privy Council, PCO, assumes a much stronger leadership role than it has played to date. PCO has not taken responsibility for making sustainable development a driver of government policies and programs. Rather, it has pushed this leadership responsibility off to the deputy minister coordinating committee on sustainable development. While the deputy minister committee has done some good work, it has never been more than a sideline for busy deputies preoccupied with running their departments and a host of other responsibilities.
The opportunity here is for PCO to build a unit to lead system-wide coordination and support the Ad Hoc Committee of Cabinet on Environment and Sustainable Development. PCO and the Treasury Board Secretariat have to set and enforce standards of performance across government to raise the bar for laggard departments.
One relatively straightforward step is to require rigorous application of the strategic environmental assessment process to all initiatives coming before cabinet.
The fourth barrier is that the Prime Minister's Office lacks oversight and intelligence capacity to ensure political leadership is exercised and the Prime Minister's statements are followed through.
As to the opportunity, the PM should appoint a prominent Canadian as sustainable development adviser in PMO, just as he has appointed a National Science Advisor. Science is one dimension of the sustainable development change process, yet it has its own senior adviser.
The fifth barrier is that, for too long, Finance Canada has been disengaged from the sustainable development implementation process. Canadians, and others, are beginning to notice. The OECD, the commissioner and a host of others are saying Canada is a laggard in the use of economic instruments.
As for the opportunity, Finance Canada should lead a major review of the tax system in terms of the role environmental taxes, tax incentives, tradable permits and reduction in environmentally damaging subsidies can play in strengthening the sustainable development implementation effort.
With respect to the sixth barrier, departmental sustainable development strategies are potentially powerful tools that have not been used properly. This is the Canadian experiment that the world is watching. Overall, the strategies have fallen short of their potential as strategic documents. Sustainable development concepts have not been adequately integrated into business planning, policy development and decision making and practices.
While some departments have treated these strategies as a paper exercise, other leading departments have given us a glimpse of what is possible with visionary documents that have been well implemented by employing sound management systems.
The opportunity here is for the government to reinvigorate the departmental strategies by creating a new government-wide framework document, like A Guide to Green Government, which is now dated. Such a document signed by the Prime Minister and cabinet would send a clear signal to the system and help departments integrate sustainable development ideas and principles into the policy development stage of their decision-making systems.
The seventh barrier is that there are no consequences for deputy ministers who frustrate progress on sustainable development strategies by failing to install departmental management accountability systems and rigorous reporting programs.
The opportunity here is that sustainable development objectives should be added to the short list of accountabilities in annual deputy minister performance agreements. This should improve dramatically departmental engagement as assistant deputy ministers on down will be allocated responsibility by the deputy minister for delivering on the department's obligations and opportunities.
With respect to parliamentary oversight, an eighth barrier, Parliament's capacity to hold the government to account, is enhanced by the work of parliamentary officers such as the commissioner. The commissioner is Canada's ``comparative advantage.'' It is a role and function that we are pioneering. The OECD believes it is a model institution which should be considered by other countries.
The commissioner's location within the Office of the Auditor General, OAG, has allowed the commissioner to develop a strong audit function which is important in holding the government accountable. However, the office profile is too low. Being at a secondary level in the OAG precludes the advocacy and champion role that other parliamentary officers like the Commissioners of Official Languages, Privacy and Information play in the Canadian political system.
At this early stage in the institutionalization of sustainable development practices in the Government of Canada, there is a need for a body that is prepared to champion sustainable development, which is, by definition, a forward- looking orientation.
Opportunity: The rear view ex-post audit of program, once they have been designed and implemented, is helpful for subsequent modifications. At least as important, however, is the ability to be influential in defining the problem in the first place and developing an approach to address it. It is time to revisit the 1994 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which proposed an independent commissioner that would play a proactive role in ``policy evaluation, forward looking advice, anticipation, prevention, advocacy and the coordination of diverse initiatives.''
Making the commissioner independent of the Office of the Auditor General while maintaining its audit functions, would strengthen the commissioner's office and allow it to become a champion of sustainable development to build a strong and supportive sustainable development policy community across Canada.
With respect to tools to advance environment and economy integration, your parliamentary colleague, Mr. David McGuinty, has argued that the integration of the economic system with the natural environment is a bottleneck on the path towards sustainable development and that two systemic barriers must be overcome to make additional progress: ``These barriers are the way we measure and value things — our economics and the way we make decisions.''
Ninth barrier: Since cuts were made to the environmental monitoring and reporting programs in 1995-96, the federal government has lacked the detailed information required to incorporate environmental and social components into decision making.
At the Prime Minister's request, the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy has developed six indicators. The February 2004 Speech from the Throne committed the Martin government to implement three of the six.
Opportunity: The system of national accounts should be expanded to include a ``triple bottom line'' accounting of the country's assets and liabilities. Finance Canada, Statistics Canada, and Environment Canada should be given the direction and resources to implement the supporting information systems.
Tenth barrier: Canadians do not know what the implications of a revenue neutral shift of the tax system over time, away from employment, capital and income taxes to emission and consumption taxes, would be for Canada. While other countries are exploring ecological, fiscal reform to expand employment and reduce pollution, Finance Canada is not leading this work in Canada.
Organizations as diverse as the national round table, the Green Budget Coalition and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are calling for a serious research effort. Moreover, the ground is beginning to shift here as the government is beginning to employ such fiscal tools as a response to the sustainable development needs of cities and communities.
In terms of the opportunity, the federal government should initiate a major research project to analyze the implications of ecological fiscal reform at the federal level. Finance Canada should play a key role in this project. To maintain the momentum and experiment further, the federal government should be encouraged to explore additional, novel approaches to support federal urban sustainability policy.
Eleventh barrier: The federal government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada. Despite promises since the green plan to use its procurement power to support the growth of sustainable products and enterprises, the federal government has never deployed a systematic approach to doing so. It has not walked the talk.
The opportunity: The Ministers of the Environment and Public Works should be supported in their stated effort to overcome this systemic inertia and put in place a green procurement policy by 2006 to direct the Canadian government's purchases on its buildings, fleets and equipment. The ministers will also have to establish, along with the President of the Treasury Board, government-wide performance, management frameworks and measures to ensure departmental compliance across the board.
In conclusion, leadership matters. As ``Our Common Future'' observed, ``in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will.''
As the Mulroney and Chrétien experiences show, to be successful, the sustainable development change process must be on the Prime Minister's agenda. We are waiting to see if Paul Martin and Stéphane Dion can drive sustainable development — as the determining factor — into the Government of Canada's decision-making system and ultimately into the Canadian economic and industrial system.
Parliament's institutions are a key repository of political will in this country. I encourage your committee to rise to the challenge of ``Our Common Future'' and exercise your political will.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you both for your frankness. It has been wonderful. Mr. Toner, I appreciate what you have done in regards to your report. You have given us the barriers but you have also given us solutions, and that is something that we really appreciate.
You have received a copy of the ``One-Tonne Challenge'' report, have you not? That is good. This is a report we have done over the course of a couple of years. Minister Dion was here with us and he was telling us about his framework, his new initiative. Do you want to comment on any of those items that we have had in our reports specifically, or Minister Dion's presentation to us?
Mr. Toner: First of all, let me congratulate the committee on the ``One-Tonne Challenge'' report. It is an absolutely cogent and lucid report. That is the sort of thing that can make a difference. People can understand that. Not only did you lay out the problem clearly, you asked how you can make this work. We have taken on the challenge as a government, as a country, as a society and there are barriers. You laid them out and said we have a tool kit and a range of governing instruments which we can use. You went through them in terms of information programs, the tax system, regulations and partnerships.
The Senate committees can play a prominent role. When I think of the role of our parliamentary institutions in terms of triggering action in society, I think back to the famous acid-rain report of the Senate in the 1980s. We used that in classes as an example of how a Senate committee could pull together the essence of the issue, clearly and cogently, lay out the problem and direct society to move. A whole series of things happen as a result of that.
The ``One-Tonne Challenge'' report potentially has that sort of legacy. You have identified a number of exactly the sorts of things the government should be looking at in terms of using the tax system to get the prices right. Price is a key determinant of behaviour. Our economic theory and history shows us that. You did a terrific job there.
That is why I said the Department of Finance should be charged with launching serious research on ecological fiscal reform and shifting the tax system away from taxes on good things like investment capital taxes, and income and payroll taxes, two things we want to increase. The tax system has two roles, one, to generate revenue for government purposes, and the other to shift behaviour.
Where we are behind in Canada is we are not thinking that through. We have come up against a barrier.
There are individual initiatives, such as the ones you recommended in that section of your report, for a number of good debates and many other specific things, and yet we do not have a context. We are not thinking about how this would fit in to an overall shift in our tax system. That is missing. As well, while that is happening, let us continue to encourage the government to explore novel instruments such as the ones identified in the report. Some of those ideas are not novel; they are simply common sense. You simply shift within that by making charges against high-emission vehicles and reducing charges against low-emission vehicles while still maintaining the overall pot of revenue. That is the kind of instrument that we should think about. That is important in terms of your report.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Toner, I have one more question because of your portfolio in past years. How do you get the finance department to pay attention and take on this challenge?
Mr. Toner: Many of the barriers identified and opportunities suggested by me fall squarely in the lap of the Prime Minister. These initiatives are about the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and the Department of Finance. It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to change the structure, shape and agenda of these central agencies.
The Department of Finance has to be engaged. Other departments call them regularly to propose ideas. They view themselves as having a legitimate challenge function, which central agencies do have. The PCO plays the same role with respect to initiatives moving through the cabinet process. They challenge departments as to whether they have done their consultations and thought through the implications.
The Finance Department is a repository of a highly developed intellectual capability amongst its highly educated staff. They are capable of thinking through issues with respect to the role of the tax system and the role that the tools they employ can play in society. You have to reach the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to direct the officials to do this. A number of departments are trying to encourage the officials in the Department of Finance to do it but they are not succeeding because the officials are not receiving the right signals from their political bosses to proceed.
My colleagues and I will focus our research efforts on the central agencies over the next few years. Research indicates that this is where the problem exists in our sustainable development implementation process.
Ms. May: The Sierra Club of Canada is a founding member of a group that was referenced in Mr. Toner's presentation: The Green Budget Coalition. You may know of it but we are about 20 national environmental groups that were recently joined by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. I am glad to have IISD in the group because it has done good work over the years in tracking subsidies. It is not a matter of us going to finance and saying that we want to spend more money in a specific area but rather we would talk about tax shifting. I am not sure of the answer to your question. The stubborn cultural resistance to change within the bureaucracy at large has its central core in Finance Canada. You almost need dynamite to shake them up. I do not know what it will take. When Paul Martin was the Minister of Finance we went to him with some ideas. He was always open to new ideas at that time. However, it was the bureaucracy that was difficult to move. He once said to me that he could not start anything because the department had the engine of a lawn mower and the brakes of a Rolls-Royce. That was the sense of Finance Canada bureaucrats gathering around the neck of any finance minister who thought he might change things. I do not think it is easy. They have a well-entrenched religion. One of the articles of faith is that you do not mess with the tax system. The tax system is like a religion. You do not, for instance, tax one thing and apply the revenue to another area. It can make sense to absolutely everyone in society. They did make a mistake once, which I like to remind them about, when they taxed airline tickets additionally to provide more airline security.
Talking about ecological fiscal reform, I have an example. Each year we put forward issues as the Green Budget Coalition, since 2000. In our most recent meeting this fall, one of our tax measures was a pollution tax to be applied to toxic substances listed on the National Pollutant Release Inventory. The response from finance was that it could not do anything because Environment Canada had been asked for information and could not deliver.
I do not know whether that was an excuse or whether Environment Canada's capacity is cut so low that when Finance Canada asks for information on how such a toxic tax might work, they do not know. There is also the problem of them not understanding the issue. Someone from the finance department said the department could not tax these toxic substances because industry might not have a replacement substance for the marketplace. We had to explain that none of these substances are important for the marketplace because they are waste products, pollution and unintentional contaminants of production; and no one needs them. We said that if we were to tax those emissions, it would help the companies develop a better bottom line. It is technically possible but not economically advantageous. Our regulatory system does not go far enough to move towards virtual elimination.
It is not easy but the more parliamentary institutions can focus on the problem and bring it to the public, then perhaps we can do something about it. Anyone who has worked in Ottawa recognizes the problem and the barrier,
Mr. Toner talked about the House of Commons committee report. If we go back to the 1993 Red Book, which was largely written by the current Prime Minister, we see that it talked bluntly about the need to identify the barriers to sustainability that are entrenched in our fiscal system. He then became minister of finance and it still has not changed and I do not think it is because Mr. Martin did not want to change it.
Mr. Toner: Senator Cochrane, you asked about Minister Dion. It is no longer just people like us talking about Finance Canada as a barrier. Rather, it is everyone talking about it. Think about Minister Dion's testimony before this committee. There is a gathering storm of criticism of the Department of Finance, and it is feeling defensive as a result of all this. Yet, they know that the tax system is not inviolate. It is a human construct that has a certain shape at this time in our history. The minister has said that, as minister of the environment, he cannot do everything but the ministers of industry and fisheries and finance have to help. That is why it was encouraging to see the Prime Minister create the Ad Hoc Committee of Cabinet on the Environment and Sustainable Development. That is an important step but it is not enough. Thus, I am saying that making it a permanent cabinet committee would reinforce the political will to demand action in this area of research, investigation and serious consideration of modifications to the tax system.
Minister Dion also wants to use sectoral tables on an ongoing basis to engage industry, the environment and other groups in society. Coming out of those sectoral tables will be a growing pressure to use the full range of tools that the government has to facilitate change, including fiscal tools — not only the expenditure fiscal tools but also the tax system tools — as well as regulation. Leading firms want regulation because they have to ensure that the non- performers or low performers in their sector are brought up to a minimal standard. Lack of performance reflects badly on the entire industry. A number of factors are coming together that will put some pressure on reforms to the use of the tax system.
The Deputy Chairman: Dr. Toner, finance is not part of the ad hoc committee that you mentioned.
Mr. Toner: That is true, and that is a failing.
Senator Angus: It was difficult for me to understand your point, as you are so obscure. What do you really mean?
I am a new member of this committee, but I am not an inactive person in the scheme of things over the years. However, this whole business has been a great revelation to me. Your main message, as you said, Mr. Toner, is that they are talking the talk but not walking the talk. Much has been done. One of the findings in our report on the One- Tonne Challenge is that people do not care because they do not think an individual can make a difference, and they do not understand a lot of this special language. It is a whole new lexicon, which I have taken the trouble to learn in both English and French in order that I can know what I am talking about, because they made me the spokesman in French for the One-Tonne Challenge.
This is a serious problem, as you have both articulated perfectly. Politics is the art of the possible, as we all know, and it has to do with getting people onside.
I asked for a couple more pamphlets on the One-Tonne Challenge. My wife is putting one in the stocking of every child in our network, because it is such a good document. What good is it doing sitting on the shelf at Environment Canada? Why is it not getting out into the hands of Canadians? I am a total convert. They are calling me ``le sénateur vert.'' We have to get to work.
This is very serious. The four hurricanes in Florida in the last season are an example. We have never seen that before. Thousands of Canadians had their homes there wiped out, and they are not insurable. That was not in the news. I believe all this data that you have produced with regard to climate change.
People were playing golf last weekend. Who has ever heard of that? There is something very serious going on and people are not interested. I think we are going about this in the wrong way.
Ms. Gélinas is totally dedicated to her job, but she is talking to a wall. I have known the Prime Minister since he was 10 years old. He understands the problem and is very dedicated and committed to dealing with it, yet he basically says that I am talking to a wall.
We have to approach it in a different way. We had a press conference with hired public relations people, but no one came. It was a joke. There were a few little articles, three of which were negative. They laugh at the One-Tonne Challenge.
You can see that we are listening. We heard from officials from the Department of Finance at the Banking Committee last night. In 1994, the Department of Finance instituted a program whereby when people donate ecologically sensitive land they pay no capital gains tax at all.
I phoned my mole in the Department of the Environment who told me that they have to raise money in the private sector to disseminate the message on the One-Tonne Challenge. Let us go to the private sector if we must, but I believe that this is a public relations issue and I would welcome your input on this.
Every year when the Commissioner of the Environment reports, I rise in the Senate to ask questions, but senators are not listening, there is no media there, and Hansard is not read by anyone except perhaps a university student doing a project on the environment. People laugh.
Although much money has been spent and much work has been done, and although we have fabulous people like you from the Sierra Club, we are missing the boat. I believe it is an issue of education. When Greenpeace knocks on people's doors, they run for the bunker in the basement. When people are out boating and the Greenpeace boat shows up, they go to the port for refuge.
This has not been done right. As you have said, our planet is threatened. I believe that. I have read the evidence. All the senators here would like to make a difference.
Am I on the right track? The press does not even know what a greenhouse gas emission is, and I must admit that I did not either before I read the research.
When the hurricanes come, I would like to see large front-page headlines in the newspapers saying that it is more evidence of how global warming is destroying our planet. The Florida example could be positively exploited.
What can we do to change the perception that ``greens'' are weird people?
Ms. May: I am thrilled that you are called ``le sénateur vert.'' Welcome to our ranks.
I agree with you. I have been working in the environmental movement for 30 years. We have made progress on many issues such as acid rain and ozone depletion, but we have not come to terms with climate change. I wonder whether it is partly because our language is not very good. The term ``climate change'' does not sound frightening. I believe that the key to getting this issue the attention it deserves is found in the language of security. We have marshalled huge resources in Canada for a potential terrorism threat related to 9/11.
Senator Angus: AIDS and HIV get attention.
Ms. May: We have sacrificed some civil liberties in Canada to deal with an alleged security threat. The first international climate change conference that had any media presence was in 1988. I was in the minister's office and I helped organize it. That conference was called Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security. They were on to something then and we have lost the thread. When you pose it as a security threat, it is a much bigger threat to Canada. Climate change is a bigger threat to the planet than anything that any terrorism organization can imagine. The science adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sir David King, said that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. Mr. Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, has said, ``I have spent my life looking for weapons of mass destruction. Frankly, I am much more worried about climate change.''
Recently, a Pentagon report was leaked to The Observer in London last February, and it was reported in Fortune magazine. They did an analysis of what would be a plausible climate change scenario for abrupt climate change. They concluded it was plausible; they hired people from Shell and used their modelling. The Department of National Defence report concluded that it was plausible that the Gulf Stream could stall in 2010, and looked at the cascading impacts around the planet, including, of course, massive loss of life, with all of Europe being plunged into a much colder climate, loss of food production and starvation. They looked at the social implications, such as massive refugee pressures.
We need to fix our language. Frankly, I am an environmentalist and I work with an environmental group. Let us stop talking about it as an environmental issue. No one gives a damn if it is an environmental issue. It is the biggest threat to our security, period, and maybe that will get their attention.
Senator Angus: In this committee, we get good data. We have wonderful staff that supplies us with the right witnesses, the right data and the right bibliographies. I think the case is pretty well made out there that the great proliferation of cancer through our society is a direct result of the abuse of the environment, whether it is pesticides, herbicides or a million other things that are in your books. The people do not know. It is, to me, so clear, yet we have not got their attention.
Ms. May: I worked on the issue of cancer and the environment. The public and the medical community are way ahead of the government. The Ontario College of Family Physicians put out a report. The Canadian Cancer Society did a joint press release with Sierra Club of Canada several years ago. If you want to know where, by a census, most volunteer hours are being spent by people in Canada who care about the environment, it is in small committees, trying to get a ban at the municipal level on chemicals that could cause cancer being used to make lawns look good. These campaigns have resulted in 70 different communities across Canada passing bylaws. Each bylaw is fought vociferously by the chemical lobby, and yet you still get these bylaws in town after town.
I think the public is there. The medical community looks at the increase in childhood cancers. Then we have the idiocy of the last week's Margaret Wente column in The Globe and Mail in which she defended the level of PCBs in farmed salmon by saying that there are more PCBs in breast milk, as though that were a good thing. We are getting PCBs in our breast milk because we are eating farmed salmon contaminated by PCBs. I am just ranting a bit.
Senator Angus: I was ranting a bit, too.
Mr. Toner: Because you recently put out the One-Tonne Challenge, we are very much focused on the public's behaviour. That is what you are thinking about now. The first time the environment topped the public opinion poll was in 1988, and it was just after a series of ecological disasters: the PCB fire, Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, and other nasty things. It is not really a good thing to have this issue at the top of public opinion because it means we have had disasters.
Interestingly, in a poll taken several weeks ago, it is back in the top three. I think you have painted far too bleak a picture of where Canadians are at in this picture. What is of interest to us here, because this is the discussion role of government today, is the relationship between government, and individual attitudes and behaviour.
What is public policy? Public policy is the exercise of government authority to change behaviour in society in a reliable, predictable manner. That is what separates countries like ours, with the rule of law and good public policies, from uncivilized places.
The question is, how does government help influence that shift in behaviour that you talk about? I think many things have happened. Just below the surface in everyone's mind in this country is much of the knowledge that you have. It just needs that next step to trigger the behavioural changes.
In terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the government has not begun to do anything yet. It has only used an expenditure instrument so far. It has spent much money, but it has not really begun to bite in terms of regulations for the large final emitters that will have to be put in place. That will have implications and impacts for all of us in terms of the price of the products that we pay for. That will be a determining factor. It may be the trigger.
You asked in your report: Why are those educational and information documents your wife will distribute to your grandchildren not going out in all the utility bills that every Canadian gets from the electricity or the gas company? That is a fairly easy thing.
Senator Angus: On Monday I got a fantastic piece from Hydro-Québec, which came only in French, although available in English. They put one out this month, if you are interested. That should be done everywhere.
Mr. Toner: Exactly. There is where you seek out opportunities where government and its partners can influence public opinion through information. As you say in your own report, information is only part of the parcel that you need to trigger behavioural change. Price is the other thing. That will be coming. The price of our energy commodities will only go up in the future. We all know that. That trigger will be biting for Canadians.
What Minister Dion is doing is so impressive. He is talking about the response to these problems as potential advantages, in terms of the next Industrial Revolution, and that we are able to harness industrial change and government policy to make breakthroughs to change the nature of our production processes. We basically do not just control toxics; we take them right out of the industrial system. Those are the breakthroughs the engineers can make if they have the drivers and signals right within their own firms. That is why embracing individual firms and industry associations around the sectoral tables with NGOs is a good idea. It will force companies to think over the horizon, because the good companies are the ones that are already doing this. There is a tremendous body of literature. One of the senators, perhaps Senator Milne, referred in some of your earlier testimony to Braungart and McDonough's work on eco-effectiveness, which is really over-the-horizon thinking. It is out there and firms are doing it. We have to get the right signals from government that it is worth doing. The momentum will then be generated and public opinion will change when industry decides it is important to make a change.
Senator Christensen: As you know, we are considering doing a study on water. This is a huge subject. We are trying to get it in a piece that we can handle and do a good job.
I am interested, Mr. Toner, on your presentation and how you focused, to a great extent, on government giving the leadership, and the problems that we have with bureaucracy and getting things moving. When we look at policy and legislation, there are many lenses out there that we should use, not only environmental but rural and others, so that when a piece of legislation comes through it has gone through those things.
Both of you have been in government. You know the huge pressures of all the information and areas that have to be checked for a piece of legislation. I would presume, not having been a cabinet minister and introduced a piece of legislation at the federal level, that one thing bureaucrats do not particularly like is to have a very clear paper trail where they have given an opinion and had to sign it off as gospel. It is there forever and if something happens down the line it can be traced back to them. It should be a requirement on any legislation that you have a signoff. When the legislation goes through, it has to go to all these places to be signed off and given a clear explanation as to why it is yes or no. That should be reviewed either by the Prime Minister directly, his review staff person or a very small select committee of cabinet that would review each and every piece of legislation. They should go through the checklist and make sure all these areas are covered. If they were, the legislation is okay to go, but if not, then it would not go. That seems pretty elementary.
Mr. Toner: You are right. You are really at the nub of the question or the heart of the issue. The Minister said sustainable development is hard to understand. Sustainable development simply asks that when you make decisions, either in terms of policy or ongoing day-to-day operations, you ask yourself what are the implications of this for environment sustainability, economic efficiency and social well-being. If you ask yourself those questions, then you are thinking through the lens of sustainable development.
Back in 1990, that is what the Conservative government said we have to do. The Green Plan laid out the argument for why that had to be done. It is exactly the argument that both of you have just laid out. They passed a cabinet directive which required the public service to employ a strategic environmental assessment every time information came to them. What they were reluctant to do, and where it fell down, is they refused to make it legally binding or a legal requirement. It was a directive or an encouragement. Then it became that the system had to ensure the quality control; the quality control came from within the system, and it broke down and it was not taken seriously. Hence, the government itself, nine years later, in 1999, said, ``It is not working. We are not thinking through the sustainable development lens when we make decisions. We have to reinvigorate the strategic environmental assessment process.'' They passed another updated cabinet directive. Both times, cabinet was not willing and able to make it a legal requirement. They did not legislate it either in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or elsewhere. There has been some reluctance, so the public officials in the public service look at this and say, ``They sort of want us to do it, and it is sort of something we should do, but we do not really have to do it because it is not in law.'' That is where it has broken down, and that is exactly the tool you are referring to that could be hugely important, and force the system to look through the sustainable development lens as it makes decisions.
Senator Christensen: It does not have to be law. If you, as the minister, want to get that legislation done and that is not completed, you do not get your legislation.
Mr. Toner: Yes, and that is why I made the argument for a sustainable development adviser in the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister cannot be everywhere all the time. There should be someone in his office monitoring that decision-making system. Ultimately, this is all the Prime Minister's accountabilities, because all the decisions coming out of cabinet have the Prime Minister's signature on them. In a sense, having the capacity in his own office to be able to monitor that would be an important step in making it happen.
Senator Christensen: It should not be difficult. Look at how many pieces of legislation go through in a year. There is not a lot, maybe 35 or 40.
Mr. Toner: That is why it was another one of my recommendations to have a unit in PCO whose job it was to exactly ask the questions that you are asking and say, ``Was a proper strategic environmental assessment done on this initiative. Were those questions asked?'' In the end, they may conclude there are trade-offs to be made, and that is fair enough once you have thought through the implications. Yes, with some institutional changes at the centre in the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister's department, this could be made to work.
Senator Milne: You talk about the fact that environmental analysis should be enforced by law on every decision of government. I would not have a whole lot of hope even if it were, because gender analysis is now enforced by law on government and still is not happening within many of our departments here in Ottawa. Fuel efficient cars are enforced by law. Senator Kenny's bill passed that the government fleet should be fuel efficient, and that is not happening yet. I am just saying it does not always work that way, unfortunately.
Mr. Toner: That is where the political will issue is important. If you have ministers who are determined to make it happen, then they will exercise their will. You have to hold deputy ministers to account, and make this part of their performance agreements. That will make things happen.
Industry Canada did something from a management point of view which is really important. There is a reason that the commissioner always points out Industry Canada as one of the top performers in terms of sustainable development strategies. I was an adviser to a number of departments, and I argued the same argument in each department. Only this one department actually took it up. Name names. Cite responsibility centres. Whose job is it to implement that part of the strategy? Which assistant deputy minister will be responsible for ensuring that it actually takes place? If you go to their strategy, you will see that the entire strategy is divided up. It is right there, and it is explained how they are accountable to the deputy minister. They will meet a couple of times a year on this. One-third of the strategy is the responsibility of someone who is named, not by personal name but as the Assistant Deputy Minister of. For each and every one of their deliverables, there is a responsibility centre cited. Guess what? Guess which is the top performing department in actually walking the talk and doing what they are saying? It is the department which identifies who is responsible. If you make the deputies responsible, the deputies will ensure that the rest of the system delivers.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witness for his presentation. It was very instructive. For some time now, we have been hearing from people who have been getting us up to speed on what is going on in the environment. There is the ``sénateur vert'' and I'm the ``bad boy of the Senate.'' The senator is right that when you call the department, they have boxes and boxes of pamphlets stacked from floor to ceiling. It is true what the senator says. They should send some of them out and let people know what is being done and what is being planned and what should be done.
The senator says he has done press conferences on the One-Tonne Challenge. I think that all environmental organizations should have been at the conference to support the senator's words and the report. If you think that the report was very good, I think we should all stick together, environment committees and organizations that advocate that the government and senior officials change their way of doing things. True, it is very hard to change the way senior officials do things. If we put huge pressure on all of the departments in question, — industry, environment and the departments — we then will ultimately reach a solution. And I have a question for you: Do you think that there might be, in the organizations you represent and in the organizations that appear before us, a connection with the chair and that we might have a connotation together? As the senator said earlier, when you see Greenpeace coming, you close your doors and hide in the basement and barricade yourself in.
I will give you an example: A year ago, I bought some property in Wakefield. Some local environmentalists started hassling me on my property and telling me that I am not allowed to do this or that.
According to the Department of the Environment, if I have a slope of less than 30 per cent down to the shoreline, I can put in a road to put my dock in the water, and my rowboat, my canoe and my paddle boat. People came and said no, you are not allowed to. They are not aware of what is going on with respect to the shoreline. As the senator said, we should send them some pamphlets before they start hassling people, to let them know what is going on, where things stand. It is not easy. It is true that people barricade themselves in, it is true that people are afraid of Greenpeace and environmentalists, and it is not true. Perhaps those people are not well informed and perhaps they are worse than someone who has done something illegal, because they think someone has done something illegal and they themselves may be doing more than the person who did it. I think that in terms of communication — and what the senator said is true — journalists, out of four articles, there are three. That is what they did with me. There were lots of articles, I had drowned in the Gatineau River, I was everywhere, I was a monster. And basically, it is not true. Our One-Tonne Challenge is a great report. That is why journalists are not producing it. That is why they are not saying good things, because it is good. When it is bad, yes, no problem, let's go. I have been in politics for 13 years, since 1965 in the city of Montreal. I can tell you that when you have got something good, no journalist is ever going to promote it. When there is something bad, that is good, that is sensational. Is there any chance, in all of your organizations, of making a few journalists aware of our cause and ultimately producing some good results? That would encourage government to take an interest in our One-Tonne Challenge and the environment.
[English]
Ms. May: I could not agree with you more, that there are problems of getting media coverage, and their preference is for bad news over good.
We recently gave our highest award to the former Minister of Environment Canada, Mr. David Anderson. It is the John Fraser Award for Environmental Achievement — and we issued a number of press releases about it. The Prime Minister came to the reception, which was lovely, but because it was all very positive, there was no news coverage at all. If we tarred and feathered him, we would have been on the front page news.
In terms of your own press coverage, I was impressed with the amount of media the One-Tonne Challenge report got. Reports from the Senate are not usually covered at all in the news media. I thought you did very well.
One thing that could have helped — and I do not know if I want to be testifying to strategy for media — we would be more than happy, when you have a report coming out, if we saw it in draft, or we had a hint of the date when it was coming out. By the time we caught up with your ``One-Tonne Challenge'' report, it was too late for us to release a press release supporting you because days had passed. In the news media, 24 hours is an eternity.
They are not going to come back if we say a week later, we have just read the Senate's report and we think it is a fine piece of work; it is too late. We have to respond the day of, and then maybe we can amplify the attention that the issue gets.
There was one other thing I was going to mention. Working together to create the pressure on all ministers is what we live to do. The fact that a Senate committee is converted, if you will —is convinced that these issues are serious and important — helps us enormously. The Senate of Canada, as Mr. Toner mentioned, on a number of issues through its reports, has shone a spotlight that has changed the way people look at issues.
Another one is the boreal forest report, which was quite far ahead of a lot of other concern for boreal forests. It has moved people along with it. There was the Senate work on bovine growth hormone, which former senator Eugene Whelan and Senator Spivak worked on, that had a huge impact on what happened, because there was public awareness on that. There was a real effort at media coverage, and that might be one way we can work together.
Senator Lavigne: It is true. Changing things over here at the government is really tough. I was a member of Parliament for 10 years, and all my files that I defended were not easy, but if I had all the people with me, it was easier.
It is the same thing at the Senate. To change some things at the Senate is not easy. I just put a motion to swear allegiance to Canada, and it is tough because the Senate is not used to changing things. I see your name is Elizabeth — we swear allegiance to Elizabeth too; we are not swearing allegiance to our country, Canada. To change that, and everything in the government, is tough.
When a young senator comes to the Senate, they look at him like — I have not got white hair already — so it is tough.
[Translation]
But the wisdom is there.
[English]
Mr. Toner: Can I say something in response? I have a cottage near you, so I have been following the story in the local paper. You are right. There is a culture of negativism in the media. They like the bad news stories. That is why in 1998, people's concerns about the environment topped public opinion polls, because there had been a bunch of disasters. The ambulance-chaser mentality of the media allows it to highlight those sorts of things.
Personally, I am working with students in the School of Journalism at Carleton University, trying to bring to their attention the positive side of these issues and the way in which they can make change at journalists, and not focus simply on the negative. There are enough journalists out there — you have to get to them, you have to be strategic.
With respect to this issue of societal change, this is a generational change process we are talking about. ``Our Common Future'' in 1987, 15 years ago, said this is a generational phenomenon. We are not even through the first generation yet that was born then. This is a long-term change process. There has, in fact, been a lot of change since 1987.
Let me make one example of how a change process can be put in place. It is about the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Where did that idea come from?
The idea of an environmental auditor general was introduced in political discourse in this country by Ms. May and her colleagues in the environmental movement in the summer of 1989. They saw Prime Minister Mulroney go to the UN General Assembly in the fall of 1988, when the assembly was discussing ``Our Common Future,'' and commit Canada to create a sustainable development strategy in response to the injunction in there to do that.
The environmentalists fought strategically and said, ah, an opening. Eighty groups pulled themselves together, and in the summer of 1989 they presented something called ``Greenprint for Canada'' to Mr. Lucien Bouchard, then minister of environment, and the Prime Minister.
In there, there was basically the argument that government has to walk the talk; it needs to hold itself accountable for its performance in this area. Who does that? The Auditor General does a good job; why not have an environmental auditor general? The idea was considered by the Conservatives in the green plan, and rejected at the time.
However, Mr. Paul Martin and the Liberals, in opposition, heard it. They said, good idea. It pops up in their 1993 electoral manifesto, the Red Book. It was Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin.
My point here is, how does an idea evolve? The instrument is then articulated in the electoral platform; they get elected and now they have to implement it. They send it to the standing committee, which does its assessment of what the office should look like and they come back with a recommendation for an independent officer. The government considers it and says, no, we will put it at a lower level in the office of the Auditor General.
And the good work — you have fallen in love with the commissioner — both commissioners have done a terrific job. However, they are constrained by being in an outfit, by being in a place which legitimately — the office of the Auditor General is the chief financial auditor of Canada — should not be commenting on policy. The Auditor General skates a close line, doing pirouettes and figure eights, in order to be very close to the policy line sometimes, as does the commissioner.
My argument is that we must take this idea and move it to the next stage where it can become more independent. You have an ally out there, someone you could work with who would have the independence of a commissioner, and would be expected to be the champion.
You expect the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner or official languages commissioner to be the champion of these issues; to be proactive, encouraging, and to coach and work with people and departments and the policy community. The commissioner could, if independent of the Office of the Auditor General, where she is constrained to speak on policy, could do that job. This is an example of an idea, an institution, introduced in the political discourse by a group of environmentalists. It is considered, rejected and later pops up again, introduced, grows up, matures, performs, produces and is now ready for the next stage. This is the change process.
Do not get down. You have become converted fairly recently. If you have been struggling with this issue for a long time, you could become negative and say, ``We have not seen a change,'' or say, ``It is like drinking and driving, or smoking,'' and those other absolute transformations that have taken place in societal attitudes. This one is gaining strength; it is happening. We need to support ministers like Minister Dion, who are trying to move this issue to the next stage. I am certain your committee will do that.
The Deputy Chairman: We are having lunch with Ms. Gélinas next week, so we are making progress.
Senator Angus: I would like to follow up on your response to my rant. All your ideas are good. You have said there are 12 barriers and here are some opportunities for getting over the barriers. Then you are saying we are making progress. Tremendous progress has been made. The younger generation are much more aware of these pressing urgent issues, because the problem has gotten worse, or at least the evidence is much more perceptible now.
Public policy is what you have talked about. I believe we agree; awareness is essential, whether it is within or without the system. I am again most taken by what the commissioner said. The tools are there. The implementation and the leadership is lacking.
You have mentioned Mr. David Anderson. He actually did not survive the next step. You did say that he was one of the few cabinet ministers to survive the leadership transition, then he did not survive, but he then went public. I admired him for doing that. He was not my favourite, but he went public and spoke about his frustrations, not once, but three times.
Last weekend, there was an eight-column headline: ``Anderson frustrated, tells why.'' It was terrific. It was gutsy, what is needed and it helps.
I have the feeling that maybe that is not helpful from what you are saying. Who else was a policy-maker? He was a minister of the Crown. Stéphane Dion almost said it and certainly another minister did. They get in there and then they are shuffled off to Buffalo because there are bigger issues to deal with.
Could you help me on that one?
Ms. May: One thing that I have not said on the record, and I wanted to add is that Sierra Club of Canada supports all of the specific recommendations that are in Dr. Toner's paper. They are specific, helpful and strong.
Minister Dion is potentially one of the best environment ministers we have ever had. I am encouraged to see him in the pages of The Globe and Mail saying, Look, our real challenge on climate change is not Kyoto; it is over the next 50 years accomplishing a 70-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gases. That is the first time I have seen a member of cabinet speak directly to the scale of our real challenge.
I will leave you with one example. The international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment came out with very frightening information. We have known it for a long time. It is significant and measurable. The fact that we now have 30 per cent more CO2 in our atmosphere by atmospheric concentration is not essentially reversible. We have changed the climate. We cannot get back what we used to have. Our goal is to keep it from becoming so severe and disruptive to society that we cannot adapt to it. That is the risk of increasing greenhouse gases all the time. This is a complex issue to communicate to people, because we cannot say, ``If you stop driving your SUV, you will have fewer floods.'' We will have more floods, hurricanes, ice storms and other severe weather events. We cannot stop what we have already done. We are trying to keep it from becoming worse.
We have a government that says they are committed to the Kyoto Protocol. That is great. Then we hear that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is the best thing going. Before we have an environmental assessment, we have heard several times from the Minister of Natural Resources Canada, Mr. John Efford, that we will go ahead and build that pipeline. The natural gas from the Mackenzie Valley is destined for the Athabasca Tar Sands. Turning bitumen muck into fuel is hugely energy-intensive. We will take one of the most valuable, lowest-carbon fossil fuels, natural gas, and build a 1300-kilometre sub-surface pipeline through inconsistent permafrost, industrializing what has been until now a pristine, unfragmented wilderness in order to deliver natural gas to produce carbon-intensive fuel to be shipped to the United States for export. It makes no sense. It will have a huge impact on our greenhouse gas production in Canada. This is what I mean by cognitive dissidence.
We say we are committed to achieving it, but if we understood how scary climate change was, would anyone even contemplate continuing to exploit the Athabasca Tar Sands, the heaviest carbon fuel in Canada other than coal? Why are we doing it? At some level we do not understand how serious it is.
If you get Minister Dion before you again, Environment Canada every day is on every radio station in this country telling people what the weather is. I have been trying since I was in the minister's office from 1986 to 1988, to get the guys on the radio to say that we just had a climate-change event.
The minister needs to tell them, when we are seeing more extreme weather events because of climate change. This is a communications opportunity. They never say it. It is so obvious. They are reaching millions of Canadians every day to tell them whether to take their umbrella. They can tell them to take your umbrella and take the bus.
Senator Lavigne: In regard to gas, it is true what you say.
[Translation]
Hydro-Quebec wants to do some new projects and Environment Canada says: If you do the project on this lake or that river, with clean electricity, without pollution, always renewable, and they add: You are going to affect a few weeds on the bottom of the river or lake and that is going to cause harm to the fish.
If I look at one situation that causes harm to fish and another that causes harm in the way natural gas does, if you had the choice, madam, which of the two would you pick?
[English]
Ms. May: I have always felt that choosing between large scale hydro and other bad choices are at this point, with all due respect, false choices. We can achieve everything we need to achieve on Kyoto without new sources of energy. We can do it through energy efficiency and improving the productivity of the energy we use.
Mr. Ralph Torrie did a study for the Climate Action Network called ``Kyoto and Beyond.'' In that study it was shown that large scale hydro is not necessarily clean. We are intervenors in the Rupert project to say that there are environmental problems with large hydro.
We have huge potential for run-of-the-river hydro. The Ontario government has recently opened up Crown land in Ontario to say to small-scale entrepreneurs, Go for it. Find small rivers that are running and you can put run-of-the- river turbines on those. We are creating opportunities to open up our lands to private entrepreneurs for run-of-the- river turbines.
[Translation]
But big dams cause a lot of environmental problems.
[English]
Senator Angus: Are you okay with the wind?
Ms. May: Do not put them on migratory bird flyways, but there is huge potential.
The Deputy Chairman: I wish to thank the witnesses for their very informative presentations.
Ms. May, you have charmed Senator Angus and you made my day.
The committee continued in camera.