Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - May 13, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:34 p.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate. The topic was the federal strategy on sustainable development.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Tommy Banks. I am a senator from Alberta and I have the honour to chair this committee.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee. We have Senator Adams from Nunavut who is the dean of the Senate, Senator Mitchell from Alberta, Senator Oliver from Nova Scotia, and Senator Gustafson from Saskatchewan.
Today, we will conduct a follow-up meeting on the government's commitment to develop a federal sustainable development strategy. We have the pleasure of welcoming this evening Ronald Thompson, FCA, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development from the Office of the Auditor General. He is accompanied by Andrew Ferguson, Principal from the Office of the Auditor General. We also have Jacques Paquette, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Economic and Regional Development Policy in the Privy Council Office; George Redling, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; Suzan Bowser, Director General, Sustainability Policy for Environment Canada; and Ellen Burack, Director General, Office of Greening Government Operations with Public Works and Government Services Canada.
We last heard from Mr. Thompson on the topic of a federal strategy for sustainable development on November 26, 2007. We have had the pleasure of Mr. Thompson being with us since then on other subjects. That was a year after he tabled his annual report on sustainable development in the Senate on October 30, 2006. That report was divided into two chapters dealing with sustainable development on the part of the government and with environmental petitions on the part of the Office of the Auditor General.
I thank you all for appearing before us today. Considering the size of the panel, I would appreciate it if you would keep your opening remarks as concise as possible in order to allow questioning from members. I suspect there will be a great deal of questions.
Mr. Thompson, I will ask you to begin.
Ronald Thompson, FCA, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We are delighted to be here today to discuss our October 2007 audit of departmental sustainable development strategies or SDSs. As you mentioned, joining me at the table is Andrew Ferguson who is familiar with that audit and related issues.
Sustainable development strategies were introduced by Parliament a decade ago. They are intended to identify for parliamentarians and Canadians the key environmental, social and economic risks, and opportunities associated with federal policies, programs and activities. In their strategies, departments are expected to provide clear, concrete action plans that they will implement to address the risks and seize the opportunities for more sustainable development. The latest and fourth round of SDSs was tabled in December 2006, with the next round due in December 2009.
[Translation]
We have been monitoring sustainable development strategies for more than a decade. Unfortunately, we have found little evidence that they have encouraged departments to integrate environmental protection objectives with economic and social policy objectives in a substantive or meaningful way. Last October, we called on the government to carry out a thorough review of what needs to be done to get the SDS process back on track.
After consultation with Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Publics Works and Government Services Canada, Environment Canada agreed to carry out this review on the government's behalf, and to have it completed by October of this year.
We are pleased that department officials are here today for a good discussion of how the SDS review is coming along.
Committee members may wish to ask the officials about the nature, scope and deliverables of the review in relation to the specifics set out in our recommendation at paragraph 1.76 of our report, as well as the current status of work and emerging findings.
It would be important to know whether or not a set of goals for the government as a whole is being developed and if so, how departmental SDSs will fit with and contribute to the overarching plan or strategy. In 2005, we recommended that an overarching federal SDS be established, and the Privy Council Office committed to having one in place by mid 2006.
[English]
In addition, committee members may wish to explore with officials the roles and responsibilities of the Privy Council Office, PCO, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and Government Services Canada in the review, and perhaps more importantly, in the ongoing SDS process.
We noted in our 2007 report that the government needs to determine whether sufficiently powerful motivators and levers are in place to make sustainable development thinking a standard operating practice in all departments. It would be important to determine what measures will be introduced to ensure that senior management is motivated to achieve the government's expectations for sustainable development strategies.
This hearing is particularly timely, given that guidance for the December 2009 round of SDSs will likely have to be finalized this calendar year. Senators may wish to ask departmental officials how the results of the review of the SDS process will be incorporated into this next round of sustainable development strategies.
Last March, we provided to Parliament the results of an audit of strategic environmental assessments, or SEAs. As was the case with SDSs, we found that the SEA process was also not working.
Strategic environmental assessments were put in place by cabinet directive in 1990 to ensure that the government would assess the potential environmental impacts of its policies, plans and programs before approving them. The directive was amended in 2004 to require public statements.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is beginning an evaluation of the SEA process in order to determine what needs to be done to get that important management tool on track. A separate hearing on that evaluation would be helpful in that regard.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the SDS and the SEA processes are two fundamental tools that the government put in place some years ago to help the government understand and manage environment and sustainable development issues. Unfortunately, both tools are broken; both need to be fixed. Interest and encouragement by this committee can certainly help bring this about.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the appropriate time, we would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you, commissioner. Which of our guests would like to proceed?
Suzan Bowser, Director General, Sustainability Policy, Environment Canada: I am pleased to be here today to assist the committee in its consideration of sustainable development strategies.
I will begin by providing some context on the government's current approach to sustainable development planning and reporting. As you know, government departments have been required since 1997 to produce sustainable development strategies every three years in compliance with the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act. As the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development pointed out in his remarks, there is scope to improve the effectiveness of the strategies as drivers of change.
[Translation]
Some progress has already been made. In 2006, prior to the fourth round of strategies, Environment Canada led federal efforts to improve the coordination and did achieve consensus on a set of federal goals. Future efforts will build on this foundation.
In December of 2006, on tabling the fourth round of sustainable development strategies, the Minister of the Environment specifically noted the Commissioner's observation in 2005 that the failure to develop a federal sustainable development strategy
will leave Canadians and parliamentarians without a clear idea of the government's overall plan for sustainable development, how it will get there, and what progress it has made.
This is what the minister said.
I am aware that this committee also recommended a federal strategy in an interim report tabled in 2005. The minister noted that the government agreed with the commissioner that more needs to be done to improve sustainable development reporting, and indicated that a range of options would be examined, including legislation, with a view to making further progress toward putting sustainability at the heart of the government's activities.
[English]
Environment Canada began a review at that time with a view to developing options for improvements for the fifth round of strategies beginning in 2009. Subsequently, the commissioner undertook a 10-year retrospective evaluation of the existing approach and recommended that the government undertake a thorough review by October 2008.
As you know, the government accepted that recommendation and work is under way. Environment Canada is working collaboratively with the commissioner and his staff throughout this process. The current review has several areas of focus, including examining options for a strengthened overarching strategy with clear goals and indicators. In the past, although broad goals and objectives have been established, those goals have often been defined very broadly. As a consequence, monitoring and reporting on progress has been difficult.
I am confident that the current review will be completed by the October deadline set by the commissioner. Clearly, however, the government will need to make the final decisions on any modifications to the existing approach.
I — and my colleagues from the other departments — would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Would anyone else like to make addresses or do you want to go directly to questions? We will go to questions.
I should forearm you that there is a sense of frustration among certain members of this committee. Over the years, we are so used to hearing about how things are being examined, how things will be moved forward, we will look at many options and how we might implement, et cetera. I am talking about successive governments of different colours; I am not talking about the present government only.
Regardless, so far, it has been a lot of fluff on everyone's part. We are hopeful that we will see in October, and shortly after that by way of some implementation based on what the government decides to do — based, I presume to a degree on the report — that concrete action with respect to sustainable development strategies on the part of every government department will be taken, and in some concrete way that we will all be able to see.
It is a fair thing to tell you that is the context of this situation. You referred, Ms. Bowser, to a report of this committee in 2005 which recommended that this should be done and here we are.
Are there questions for our witnesses, senators? I have a short list so far.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you to each of you for being here. I am glad that the chair put it in perspective because I feel a profound sense of frustration about this. I have a sense — and I hope you do, too — that each of you are in positions of significant responsibility with respect to one of the most significant issues facing this country, period. It is certainly the issue of the 21st century. It must be profoundly frustrating for you to spend your careers in these important roles and find out years later that almost nothing seems to have been done. Currently, in fact, you are confronted with a government that has not wanted to do anything though now says it does, yet nothing seems to be happening. As an aside, I am partisan.
I would like to start with Mr. Paquette from the Privy Council Office. I am always struck by how this government argues, and how it seems that we have accepted this myth from the ether, that attacking climate change will hurt an economy. At the same time, they will announce billions of dollars to be spent on tanks, helicopters and transport planes for a war halfway around the world, which may not be worthwhile. There are arguments around that validity. There is never talk about how that will hurt an economy. Do you know why? It will not. During the Second World War, we fundamentally restructured our economy. That did not hurt our economy either. In fact, it created an economy that sustained a western, modernized, industrialized economy that has supported this country for 60 years.
Can you tell me from your perspective what you recommend to this government when it comes to climate change initiatives? Do you say it will hurt an economy or do you see it as I do — that it is, in fact, the next economic or clean industrial revolution? Do you argue that, if we continue to do what we are doing, we will hurt our economy?
Jacques Paquette, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Economic and Regional Development Policy, Privy Council Office: You are asking a very simple question, of course.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, it is a little bit pointed. I will tell you it is on my mind.
Mr. Paquette: Part of your question I cannot really answer. Some of the issues you have raised require the government itself — the Prime Minister and the ministers — to provide some of these responses regarding the type of policies the government would adopt — for example, on issues like climate change.
Just to situate a few elements regarding the development of the policy or the approach on climate change, the lead is with the Minister of the Environment on this. As you know, the release recently of the framework on the GHG, greenhouse gas, emissions was done by Minister Baird; that is where the policy lead resides.
The role of the Privy Council Office is not to develop policies. We have three roles, as you might expect. One of them is to provide advice to the Prime Minister on some issues but the lead, in terms of developing policies, resides with the department.
Second, we also support the committee system. That is probably a little bit of the question you are asking as well; we play a challenge function. When we look at some of the proposals being put on the table, the Prime Minister will ask us what we think — what are the pros and cons?
I would say that the framework on the greenhouse gas emissions issued recently was the illustration of what the government is trying to do, which is to balance the need to maintain economic growth with the need to address significantly the challenges that climate change is creating in Canada among other countries. This is a global issue.
The main question perhaps should be asked to the Minister of the Environment who has the lead on this policy issue.
Senator Mitchell: Then I will ask Environment Canada.
The Chair: I want to be sure we are talking about sustainable development strategies here.
Senator Mitchell: If a climate change initiative is not part of a sustainable development strategy, then we do not have a strategy. I know that is what you want me to clarify. I also am pretty sure we do not have a climate change strategy that is of any consequence whatsoever. What I like to say is the minister is spinning so hard on this initiative that he is perpetually dizzy.
I would like to pursue it then with Environment Canada. You have announced that the target will be 20 per cent of 2006 levels —
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Mitchell. We are talking about sustainable development strategies. I am not sure it is fair to ask about emissions levels in terms of sustainable development.
Senator Mitchell: My question is — is it sustainable? What science have you used to determine that the reduction of 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020 represents a sustainable strategy, when every last credible scientific conclusion in the world is that Canada has to be 26 per cent of 1990 levels?
If we are going to build a sustainable development strategy, I assume it would be on some form of science that makes sense. Could you tell me, Ms. Bowser, what science, reports and analysis were used by the minister, by that government, to come up with 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020?
Ms. Bowser: I would really like to respond to your question but I am not well placed to do so. That is not my area of responsibility. I have to respectfully say that, with regard to the efficacy of the policy, that would be up to the minister or ministers to respond.
When the turning-the-corner plan came out, detailed emissions modeling work was done, which I could certainly ensure is shared with the committee. It may give you more information in that regard.
Senator Mitchell: Great. Clearly, your department would work on that kind of thing. What is your role in developing a sustainable development strategy? Do you feel that you have a leadership role? Should you be dealing with each of these departments? Should you be dealing with Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, or Treasury Board or whoever else? Or is it PWGSC that should take the lead role?
Which minister feels the deep responsibility, the need to see this happen, and which minister will be embarrassed — if that would be possible for these people — when it does not happen three or four years from now? Again, we will be in a place where this has not happened — I know it and you probably know it.
Where is the initiative coming from? Who is driving it? Has your minister told you, ``Get this done, I am embarrassed about it and it is important for this country and the children of this country that we do something about it?''
Ms. Bowser: At the time when the commissioner's report came out, the government decided that Environment Canada would lead in doing this review. Yes, we are in a leadership role in terms of doing this review to improve the way that sustainable development strategies are done.
Senator Mitchell: You will get to October, you will make your recommendations and somehow someone will drive this — I assume your department — and there will be consequences if it does not happen. Is that right? Mr. Thompson has already done the review. We know it is not working. What would it take to make it work? It is 13 years later.
Ms. Bowser: That is the important part of the review. The commissioner laid out a number of things that needed to be done in the review. If you look at his recommendation, there are a number of elements associated with it. One was to look at a federal strategy with clear goals and indicators. We are taking the way he laid out his recommendation seriously and tackling each component.
We are looking at not just what took place in the past. The important part of it is what needs to take place for the future. It is not only retrospective because I agree with you that we know a lot about where the issues are.
Senator Mitchell: Do you believe we can achieve Kyoto, that it is doable? Does someone, anybody?
Mr. Paquette: You are asking a simple question. If you look at the targets and whether they are achievable at this point, I think the government said in the House that it was not possible.
Senator Mitchell: I want to make one more point to each of you because you are so instrumental to this. The government says we cannot achieve Kyoto. Kyoto is 250 million tonnes each year from 2008 to 2012. I do not know whether they are generally aware of it, but carbon credits are being sold in Alberta by farmers to real companies that have to meet caps — albeit not aggressive caps — in Alberta for less than $10, probably significantly less.
Let us say it is $10. That is $2.5 billion a year for each year if we just bought carbon credits by investing in Canadian farmers. We have cut $12 billion in the GST, goods and services tax. I just want to leave you with the point that this is not so impossible to do, that this is quite doable. If you get it even cheaper — because it is cheaper there but I cannot go into the actual figures — it could be $1.5 billion or $1.75 billion for us to buy credits that are real reductions done by real farmers in Alberta that leave the carbon in the ground and we could achieve Kyoto.
We keep hearing over and over again that it cannot be done and it will ruin our economy. I want someone over there in that bureaucracy and that government — although I expect it will never get through to them — that it is absolutely doable, that it can be done. We have to change the frame of reference and the way we look at this and realize that, not only can we do it for the good of the environment, but if we miss it, we will miss the next industrial revolution. The Americans will be so far past us that we will never catch up. There is urgency to this.
The Chair: There is but that was not a question.
Senator Mitchell: No, eh?
The Chair: With respect, senator, these are not the people to whom we can ask those questions.
Senator Mitchell: I just want them to take it back.
The Chair: I appreciate that.
Senator Oliver: At the outset, I want to state that I do not have a profound sense of frustration on this matter.
The government is a large institution. Let us pretend that there are 240,000 employees in the bureaucracy, something in that area. It is clear to me that very little in terms of government policy will be implemented without some push and direction from PCO so my question is to Mr. Paquette. I would like to know what is in place now in PCO. You said you give advice to the PM and you support cabinet systems but you did not mention the third role.
In terms of supporting cabinet committee systems, does PCO screen proposals put forward to cabinet in order to ensure that they are consistent with Canada's sustainable development objectives? If so, what is in place to do that?
Mr. Paquette: Currently, a cabinet directive is in place such that any new policy proposals included in the memorandum to cabinet, MC, and submitted to cabinet for discussion should have an environmental assessment.
Senator Oliver: Is that done by PCO?
Mr. Paquette: No, it is done by the departments when they develop their proposals. They have a memo that tells them what needs to be included for consideration in the memorandum to cabinet.
Senator Oliver: When does PCO see that?
Mr. Paquette: We receive a draft of the memorandum to cabinet. We look at it to determine the different elements included. We challenge the function and ask questions on different assumptions and the numbers and look for value for money, sound objectives.
Senator Oliver: What about sustainable development, which is the issue of this committee?
Mr. Paquette: This specific element is done by the department in the form of a self-assessment. They are supposed to say whether it has been done and whether issues were raised. We look to ensure that it was done.
Senator Oliver: Are you monitoring it?
Mr. Paquette: We monitor it. When we looked at the assessment the commissioner made on this policy, we found that it is not working perfectly. We have seen some improvement over the last few years, including training. Now, many of them are being made public on the website but there are many gaps to be addressed.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is looking at it now under the recommendation of the commissioner. They are trying to see how we can improve compliance and better identify the outcomes and impacts that these assessments can have on the policy-making decision. We hope to get some proposals and recommendations to make this tool better because it is not working as it should.
Senator Oliver: What other mechanisms do you have in PCO to monitor this process with the view to making it stronger and to implementing it better?
Mr. Paquette: We are discussing that with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to develop some proposals. Currently, within PCO, the analysts look at the memorandum to cabinet and the entire element. We need to determine how we can ensure that the departments will produce what is needed in quantity as well as quality. As I said, we have some good examples of departments that have done that clearly and have quality products, whereas others have not done so. We are trying to come up with a tool that would be light enough because we do not want to impose bureaucracy on this but, at the same time, we must be able to get the result we are looking for. That is different from the assessment of projects in that it is about policy and programs.
Senator Oliver: I was interested in your presentation, Ms. Bowser. You said that one reason reporting progress is difficult is that before things were framed broadly, but now that has changed and you are being much more specific in your approach. Yet, you think that things will change. I quote your comments:
In the past, although broad goals and objectives have been established, those goals have often been defined very broadly. As a consequence, monitoring and reporting on progress has been very difficult.
I would like to know what specifically has changed and how has it been narrowed?
Ms. Bowser: It is not narrowed or changed yet. It is part of the review that we are undergoing. There are certain things that we know, as Senator Mitchell pointed out. We know the goals set out in the past are so broadly worded, without the underlying specificity, that it is difficult to assess whether someone has achieved motherhood and eaten the apple pie.
Senator Oliver: When will we get the specificities?
Ms. Bowser: This will come with the October 2008 review. We are working toward that.
The Chair: Mr. Paquette, you said words indicative of why the commissioner has concluded that the system is broken and more than just needing to be fixed. You said that, thus far, departments are doing self-assessments and that someone checks on whether they are right. I could be wrong but I believe that during the administration of former Prime Minister Mulroney there was a choke point established. It seems that perhaps we need a choke point — an officer in the cabinet who occupies the same position as Treasury Board on anything going forward. If any initiative from a government department does not pass both Treasury Board muster and environmental sustainability muster, it does not go forward. Is that not the kind of thing we need to have? Mr. Paquette or Ms. Bowser, can you tell us if you are contemplating whether the nature of the change you talked about is some kind of choke point? Is there such a thing in the future? Is that not a necessary device to ensure departments belly up to the bar and jump through the hoops?
Mr. Paquette: There are different elements. In the process, there are several steps in the development of the memorandum to cabinet. There are different occasions when we can do that, including at an interdepartmental meeting, whereby all the departments get together, including environment, and look at the MCs from other proposals, from different angles, to ensure it is being covered.
In PCO, we must be careful. We do not want to add another layer to the bureaucracy because sustainable development is an important fact. There are others as well. We want to avoid having a secretary, so to speak, for each of the issues. Every time a proposal comes in, we would have to look at it from several angles. There is likely another way of doing it and we are looking at that with the directive.
One issue we thought would be useful to increase accountability is to ask departments to make their assessments public on a website. That would ensure the department prepares a quality assessment that can be checked not only by us but also by the public. Everything that comes to PCO is checked. We have to improve our dialogue system because the analyst in charge is in constant dialogue with the departments and that happens for several issues at the same time.
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt but when a proposal comes from a government department and moves up the chain, it has to pass Treasury Board muster. The same plethora of things have to be looked at by Treasury Board. Is not the question of sustainable development equally important as whatever other considerations are made by Treasury Board? Is it not as important? Maybe it is not.
Mr. Paquette: Are you talking about the strategic assessment for a new policy, a new program?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Paquette: Yes, it is included in the consideration that the cabinet will give to a proposal. If it is included in the memorandum to cabinet, then that means this element is included in the consideration.
The Chair: Is the consideration given to that equal to the scrutiny played upon it by Treasury Board? It resides in PCO?
Mr. Paquette: That is right. When a document goes to Treasury Board for example, that department will ensure that all the elements that are supposed to be in the Treasury Board submission are included. We do the same thing. We ensure that all the elements that are supposed to be included in the memorandum to cabinet are there and that it is quality material.
The Chair: I apologize for having intervened.
Senator Kenny: Along the same lines, memory fades a bit but when it was described to this committee that Mr. Mulroney was taking a new approach, we had the impression that if then-Environment-Minister Bouchard's signature was not on the document, it would not go to cabinet. That seemed to us to create almost a new central agency and provide an extraordinary amount of influence to that particular minister. I think it would be fair to say that this committee was delighted at that prospect. We would like to know if anything of that scale is being contemplated.
Mr. Paquette: Are you suggesting that a minister would sign every proposal to cabinet?
The Chair: Let me be specific. In our 2005 report, our third recommendation was that the minister of finance should chair a permanent cabinet committee on sustainability and the environment, and that the minister should make ecological fiscal reform a priority. That is the nature of the question, I think.
Senator Kenny: No. That is another good recommendation but it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I was party to that report so I still associate myself with it.
We are saying that a cabinet minister was given sufficient authority by the Prime Minister to fundamentally frustrate any other minister if they did not conform to the standards that seemed appropriate to the environment. The message rapidly got lost because the relationship between the two men broke down fairly quickly and there was not a replacement, evidently, that met the Prime Minister's criteria to carry it on. The policy had a shelf life of about two months. Has any form or sort of structure or machinery of government like that been looked at? Are there discussions about things like that? Have you had any indication that this government is putting that sort of priority on the environment?
Mr. Paquette: I would give two answers to that. First, as you know, there is a cabinet committee that deals with the environment and energy security. That cabinet committee was established in recognition of the importance of environmental issues. It meets every week and has a substantial agenda. There are many discussions within the government on issues related to the environment because it is a very broad issue.
For the rest, to be honest, there will be a great number of MCs go through the system in one year.
Senator Kenny: That is true but you look at them all. If your department has the capacity to look at them all, then Environment Canada surely has the same capacity.
Mr. Paquette: At the moment, for each memorandum to cabinet that comes to us for consideration, there must be an interdepartmental committee meeting on the proposal where Environment Canada, for example, will participate. If there are some significant concerns, they will raise them.
Senator Kenny: Would you agree that the dynamics of the conversation would be different if, when that interdepartmental meeting took place, one set of players knew that the other set had a minister who could scotch the whole idea?
Mr. Paquette: Are you talking about ministers?
Senator Kenny: I am saying that, for example, you are having an interdepartmental meeting and you have one group of officials who want to put a proposal forward. Another group of officials are there to see that the environmental part of it is covered off. If the first group of officials understand that this group over here can get their minister not to sign the memorandum, then the dialogue that they have will be quite different. They do not meet as equals then.
Mr. Paquette: I will go back to what I was saying earlier. When you look at the number of MCs going through the system, if the requirement is for the Minister of the Environment to approve every MC, for example, then that will be more than a full-time job for the minister. This is big business. I am not sure that is necessarily the best way to achieve the objective you would like to see achieved.
Senator Kenny: We hear over and again that every department should feel responsible for the environment and they should all work together to ensure that we have a clean environment. I do not think it would be unreasonable to staff Environment Canada sufficiently to be able to review every document going to cabinet. The Privy Council Office reviews every document going to cabinet. How many people do you have on your staff? How many people are there in PCO? Are there 500?
Mr. Paquette: This is our job, yes.
Senator Kenny: No kidding.
The Chair: That is the point.
Senator Kenny: We are suggesting that we also give that job, from an environmental point of view, to Environment Canada and they review it. Surely, they are just as smart as people from any other department.
Mr. Paquette: If you allow me to be more precise, that is why I was asking about the difference between the officials and the minister. At the moment, Environment Canada is looking at all the MCs, like other departments, because this is a process. If you ask if the minister himself must sign every document that goes to cabinet, that is another challenge.
Senator Kenny: I hear you. I will not talk about signature machines or anything like that, but I will say that the discussion is often an unequal one. We understand the dynamic when departments talk to each other and we understand that some have more heft in the system than others. It depends directly on the capacity they have to screw up someone else's plans. Treasury Board can leave someone in tears after they are done with a proposal, so can the Department of Finance. Other departments that are there that do not have the same sort of heft or authority in the system are left pleading and begging, ``You might want to think about this or to consider that.'' Or they might ask, ``Cannot we adjust the wording so that it would look better when people see it in public?'' as opposed to saying, ``Change the damn thing or it will be a frosty Friday before we will approve that.''
I am talking about the dynamics between departments. We think it is a little uneven at this point and we think that there are ways that can go forward. We are prepared to give credit to our Conservative friends here because it was Mr. Mulroney who came up with the idea in the first place. We are prepared to give them all the credit for it in the world, if we thought there was a proposal like this going forward.
The Chair: Mr. Paquette, does an MC go forward without it having received the Good-Housekeeping-Seal-of- Approval of Treasury Board?
Mr. Paquette: The Treasury Board, finance and PCO are at the official level. In terms of a challenge function, if they are talking about money for example, Treasury Board will ensure that it is within the authority that exists. Finance will ensure that there is a source of funds.
The Chair: The point is, if Treasury Board says no, it will not happen — is that not correct?
Mr. Paquette: It is the same way at PCO if we say no. If it goes against policy authority, of course, yes.
The Chair: So the idea that Senator Kenny and Senator Oliver have talked about, the fact that it might be inconvenient or whatever, is not a good argument against doing it since we already do it. We just want you to do it in respect of the environment.
Mr. Paquette: Yes. Related to that, one reason we consult departments on the proposal is that, if there is clearly a problem and if Environment Canada has a point to make, they will never shy away; they will make the point. If we consider that this is a valid point, we will ask the department to work to the point. It is not just Environment Canada; I am using that department because we are talking about sustainable development, but it can also be the case for another issue that another department would raise a serious concern. We expect that any proposal coming to cabinet will be supported, or at least there will not be any significant objection raised, and one of the first questions we ask other departments is to ensure that this proposal, new plans, whatever, will not create significant problems.
On the environmental point of view, if there is a proposal that raises concern, we will ensure that it is being solved. Often we will invite departments to work together to find solutions.
Senator Kenny: I am sure you do, Mr. Paquette, but what you are telling the committee is that it will be business as usual. Business as usual is not getting the job done.
The Chair: That also was not a question.
Senator Kenny: Is business as usual not getting the job done?
Senator Spivak: I want to go back to the strategic environmental assessments. I questioned a deputy minister at that period — you can see how old I am — and I asked him, because I could not believe it, ``Do you mean to tell me that you are going to assess the potential environment impacts of any policy plan and program before approving it?'' He said, ``Absolutely, trust me, that is what will happen.''
Before I get to my question, I want to say something. I know you are all patriotic Canadians, that you have the best interests of the country at heart, that you work very hard and you are hopefully adequately compensated, but any ordinary Canadian reading this transcript would have their worst fears reinforced. They would think that the problems of our country are not just the government but the fact that bureaucrats and the bureaucracy are not tough enough and not innovative enough. I think that is the feeling around the country. We need some change.
In terms of policy plans and programs, let us take some examples. Prime Minister Chrétien subsidized the oil sands. I cannot remember how many billions of dollars.
The Chair: Lots.
Senator Spivak: We have a biofuels bill coming. Biofuels, in the opinion of the best scientific research — and not just recently with the increase in food prices but before that — was not thought to be a sustainable policy. Was that a policy plan or program of the government that, according to the strategic environmental assessment, you were supposed to comment on? It is like those American governments that fund the war but it is not on the books; it is somewhere else. I can give you a number of examples. I want to know. I do not agree with my colleague that changing procedures really would make a hell of a difference. What is needed for change is the mindset and the attitude, not only of the government but of the bureaucrats.
What happened with the biofuels bill and maybe with the oil sands? We are talking about sustainability. Just to digress for a minute — a Swedish company is coming into Alberta. They have technology for carbon capture. They will not be doing business as usual. If the government had put a heavy foot on the pedal, it might have happened in the oil sands.
Mr. Paquette: You were talking about the oil sands, for example, and some of these projects.
Senator Spivak: I am talking as well about the biofuels bill.
Mr. Paquette: In some cases, these will become projects and you will have the environmental assessment. The approval of tar sands projects would be done separately. For example, recently there was approval of a project that was a joint environmental assessment done by Alberta and the federal government. I am talking about different projects so that would be separate. This is the strategic and environmental assessment that would be done for that.
Senator Spivak: Let us talk about the biofuels bill. What surrounds the conversation about a policy of government that is going forward?
Mr. Paquette: If you have in that case, a bill, one of the steps would be for the minister to develop a proposal for consideration by cabinet. In that case, especially something of that sort, most of the discussion surrounding this issue would include some evaluation of the impact on the environment because, in that context, that is probably part of the driver for coming up with the policy.
The document, instead of having a reference on the strategic assessment, would be much more elaborated. With some of the proposals or new plans, in fact, you have in the document a significant assessment that is being done, which becomes the justification of the proposal with the pros and cons.
Senator Spivak: If I were to go to access to information, I would perhaps be able to get some idea of what the advice was. This is a specific pragmatic thing.
Mr. Paquette: Yes.
Senator Spivak: I would love to ask you what you said. Did you say, ``This is great?'' What happened?
Mr. Paquette: In that case, for proposals of that sort on biofuels, this is done by several departments, including Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and NRCan, Natural Resources Canada, and that would become part of the basis on which the government would make a decision. Often these are not necessarily only done for this proposal. This is based also on studies done by different groups. Basically, that is how the departments would prepare the proposal.
Senator Spivak: Your answers, to put it mildly, are depressing because the ordinary person would expect that, if you were looking at this properly, you would have benefits and impacts. It would be quite obvious in some cases that the impacts would outweigh the benefit and you would say to the government, ``We do not think this is a great policy.'' Of course, the government could go ahead, but at least people would have some idea of what the best thinking is in what is arguably one of the best civil services in the world, how that brain power worked. What you are telling me is just words. It does not seem to address the question properly.
Mr. Paquette: I am not sure I am expressing myself well.
Some of these proposals that come in are based on comprehensive studies and evaluation. You are using the example of biofuels where there are a lot of issues.
Senator Spivak: That is one that came to mind.
Mr. Paquette: However, for such a proposal, there would be significant time spent by departments to do studies, to come up with pros and cons to try to see the impact and, in fact, the proposal that would come forward would be the result of this. What I am saying is that, if you use some of these examples, the entire discussion that would take place in cabinet would be based on the pros and cons and is it the way to proceed, and you look at the shorter-term and longer- term benefits.
Some of the proposals there are not even a question; they are the result of a comprehensive evaluation and studies.
Senator Spivak: This, of course, is fraught with politics. I, for years, was witness to how farmers' incomes did not reflect what they were doing. At this particular point in time, farmers are benefiting from increases in world food prices.
Senator Gustafson: That is if the fertilizer companies do not take it all.
Senator Spivak: Yes, if the companies do not take it all. That is another policy cabinet did not do anything about.
The point is that I can understand a government wishing to help the farm community. However, the farm community will be helped not necessarily if their grains go to biofuels. They will be helped anyway if their grains go to food. Do those issues get thrown into the mix or is that left to government?
I am really asking this: What is the real story with strategic developmental assessments as opposed to what you are telling us in such beautiful terms?
Mr. Paquette: The real story is that it depends on each of the issues. I am saying that, at the end, we are not the government in the sense, we are not ministers. The departments will prepare a proposal and they will evaluate the pros and cons. In some cases, there will be hard choices. As you know, for some issues there are no easy solutions.
Biofuels are certainly a good challenge because, on one side, the government is looking for ways to decrease the emissions and, on the other side, biofuels are based on grain. Cellulosic will be a good solution but we are not there. That is a choice the government will have to make every day. Therefore, it is a cost and benefit.
Senator Spivak: The scientific evidence, of course, is heavily weighted on the other side, but I am finished. I just want to say one thing to you: Have some courage; the world depends on it.
The Chair: Mr. Paquette, if I can get it down to a nail for a minute, you are describing a situation and saying it is working okay, and we do all this and it is all all right and then the government makes a decision, but the commissioner has said it is not all right. The commissioner from the Office of the Auditor General has said it is not all right, it is not working, and it is not meeting what it was supposed to do. This policy is not working. Do you concur with the commissioner's view?
Mr. Paquette: We have had several discussions. Yes, I concur with the fact that we have to improve that strategic assessment. I am saying that, for some of the proposals coming to cabinet, especially when dealing with such issues as biofuels for example, the example we are discussing, there are cases where there is no question, there has been a comprehensive evaluation and assessment done. In fact, that is why the proposal is coming up; that is the result of that assessment. Where we are a challenge, and what we have to work on, is these plans and policies coming to cabinet where the link to the environment is not so obvious to departments. That is where we have to work out to ensure that, even if these links are not obvious, the proper assessments are done when we have the decision by cabinet; we will be sure that all the elements that would need to be assessed have been assessed even if the link is not necessarily evident.
That is where we are facing a challenge because some of the issues are so obvious that there is no need to ask the department to ensure it will be well done because the issue itself is so evidently linked to sustainable development. It is when we have issues that are not so obvious that we have to push more.
The Chair: Do you agree that the reporting by government departments on sustainable development strategies at the moment is not meeting the task for which it is set in the case of some government departments?
Mr. Paquette: I was talking about the strategic assessment for a member of cabinet. On the sustainable development strategy, our colleague from environment is the lead on that one.
George Redling, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I do not pretend to have a large policy answer, but I did want to provide a smaller example to Senator Spivak on strategic environmental assessment in the context of regulations.
Strategic environmental assessment has at least three pillars — the economic, the social and the environmental perspective. One example that I would offer where all three come together in a regulatory submission is something like mining effluent regulations. Sometimes in the North when a smaller community has a mine coming up close to it, it becomes a question of what the costs and benefits of the strategic environmental assessment in terms of the economic benefits are for that community, for the company that is starting up the mine, et cetera, and what are some of the negative consequences in the form of tailings which can be poisonous in terms of toxic emissions, cyanide and so on. The assessments done look at all three elements and find ways to mitigate, for example, how the tailings are deposited. The best science, we are told, is that you try to deposit those tailings in water even though fish habitat may be harmed. You have to do an environmental assessment on how much habitat is harmed, whether you can recover that habitat later on, or whether or not the company would be obliged to create further fish habitat downstream.
I want to bring up that example that strategic environmental assessment examinations and cost benefit analysis do take place, so there is a practical example of where that is done.
Senator Spivak: Is that a success story?
Mr. Redling: I would say it is a success story in the sense that all three elements come together, the regulations are pre-published for public comment, and therefore all of the stakeholders can give their views on whether they agree with the assessments. A decision is then made based on the recommendation of that minister, taking into account those factors.
Senator Mitchell: I want to pursue this process of input and collaboration of various departments which, Mr. Paquette, you are saying seems to be so obvious and must be happening.
In 2006, the government, shortly after being elected, cancelled all climate change programs. They said they were inefficient and they probably literally denied that climate change was occurring. At the same time, we now have evidence from ATIP, access to information and privacy, that the environment department had actually assessed those programs as being very efficient and highly effective and actually going a long way to getting to Kyoto.
Second, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada were in the process of preparing what has become a thick document entitled From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. It goes region by region on the actual impacts of climate change.
Would Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada have had input on the basis of that kind of work to tell the government at that time that, yes, there was climate change and something needed to be done? Would Environment Canada have had input to the minister at the time, telling him that these programs should not be cancelled because they are effective, or did that not occur either because they were never asked and the government decided and imposed it from the top? Could they have just decided and imposed from the top and never talked to you at all?
I hope they did because, if they did not, your departments have absolutely no impact whatsoever.
Mr. Paquette: I would say at the end of the day the government makes its own decisions. Basically, our role is to provide the best advice we can — non-partisan advice — and then it is up to the ministers of the government to make the decision.
The Chair: I had the impression the question was asked of Ms. Bowser.
Senator Mitchell: Either department could answer. Both departments would have been involved. In fact, perhaps Mr. Paquette's department would not have been involved at all, but Ms. Bowser's department would have been — I hope.
Ms. Bowser: Whenever a new minister starts, of course we provide extensive briefing. There was briefing done in that context.
There had been a review already underway, predating the election, on climate change programming. It was not led by Environment Canada or Natural Resources Canada but by Treasury Board with the Privy Council Office. They looked at the range of climate change programs and each program submitted their information and some assessment was done. Because I was not part of it, I cannot tell you exactly how that information was used. Work was underway looking at climate change programming, to look at its effectiveness, before there was an election.
Senator Gustafson: First, I want to address Senator Mitchell with one line. You were not here. You did not get it done.
We cannot make a political football out of this. I spent all of Brian Mulroney's tenure as his parliamentary secretary. I can tell you first-hand, in working with different people, that this was one of the number one things he wanted to put forward — for instance, with Stan Darling and the cleanup of the lakes and so on.
There is a lot of fear out there. I am from a farming background, and I was on the farm last week and will be again this week. Senator Mitchell talked about carbon credits. Our farmers do not know whether they should take carbon credits or not. They do not know who is pushing this or who is behind all of this. Some have joined up, and they also remember when they lost their oil rights when they signed up. They want to know where this thing is coming from. Frankly, there is a lot of fear in the community about these things.
Look at fuels out of grain and so on. I attended the governor's council in the United States. Last year, they built 139 plants without enough corn to service them and they are wondering why they built them all.
Senator Spivak: It was a big mistake.
Senator Gustafson: Guidance must come; there must be an awful lot of serious thought put into where we direct your responsibility to direct the ministry and government, to be helpful in providing advice in the most positive direction. These are the things that concern me and the people I serve.
Again, I will say we cannot make political footballs out of this. We must deal with it in a rational, reasonable way and deal with some of these things. Yes, we will probably make some mistakes but, hopefully, we will have many more wins than losses. That is really about all I have to say. That is where we are at and where our farmers are at. They will play a big part in this thing because, after all, they are the tenders of the land. We know what food shortages are. I was in contact with New York just the other day. They said the seriousness of the world food shortage is beyond what people recognize at this point in time. We do not recognize how serious it is. We in Canada are a fortunate people but we also have a responsibility to the rest of the world.
The Chair: Do our witnesses not agree? Thank you, Senator Gustafson. Do you have a specific question as opposed to a statement?
Senator Gustafson: Is it your role to deal with these things that may be coming in the future, and how do we deal with it? How will society deal with it?
The Chair: With respect to all of us, the question of how society will deal with climate change is not the subject of today's meeting. The subject of today's meeting is — I just want to remind us all and we will have a second shot at this — the federal strategy on sustainable development and the ways and extent to which departments of government, in reporting every three years as mandated, are functioning and whether the departments are meeting those goals.
Senator Gustafson: My son has a gentleman from France working for him on the farm. He came over here. He sold his farm there because he said, ``I had so many inspectors coming out and inspecting my farm. I wanted to come to Canada and buy a farm here where we have little bit of freedom.''
We do not want that either.
Senator Kenny: You do not want a little freedom?
Senator Gustafson: We want a lot of freedom but not a lot of inspectors.
The Chair: Is it possible for you, Ms. Bowser, to describe what you are finding out with respect to the usefulness, if that is the word, or the extent to which the respective government departments are coming up with substantive, meaningful reports on sustainable development strategies of the departments? I will assume some departments are good at it and can show demonstrable results of operation in a sustainably developmental way — this is, about the sustainable development operations of government — and that some are not or are less effective. Can you quantify that, and do you want to name any names?
Ms. Bowser: I do not especially want to name names. I would say that the numbers are fairly low.
The Chair: The numbers are low of departments meeting the requirements?
Ms. Bowser: The departments with strategies which are extremely rigorous and well-founded. I will put a proviso on that in a moment.
I have great respect for the commissioner and his office. They have done a very good job of outlining in past reports where we have weaknesses. My proviso that I wanted to come back to is that we have a system of strategies that was set up vertically in nature, meaning it is department by department. This is something your own committee has reflected on. There is nothing that connects it all together.
If you sit in the shoes of a department and someone says, ``Okay, do your sustainable development strategy,'' do you know what you are aiming for? I think that it is unfair, in a sense, to say, ``Oh, gosh, departments have not done that well.'' There are systemic issues, if you will, in the way we have structured the sustainable development strategies, and these are the kinds of things the commissioner asked us to look at, that we will look at and on which the government then needs to make decisions.
The Chair: That would contemplate some sort of overarching, clear goal?
Ms. Bowser: If you look at what we agreed to with the commissioner, we said we would look at that. We will and are looking at that, and it will be for the government to decide how it wants us to implement it.
The Chair: Without putting you on the spot, commissioner, how many government departments are there — 17?
Mr. Thompson: I think 28 are required to table these SDSs just now.
The Chair: If you were required to give an instant thumbnail sketch of how many of them have met whatever the intent was originally, how many of those 28 departments or agencies are meeting those goals?
Mr. Thompson: I do not mean to be evasive but perhaps I could be a little — not very many, in our judgment. We did not get down to naming individual departments because it is not really an issue of some doing well and others poorly. It is really the system that is broken.
The Chair: That is the point Ms. Bowser made.
Mr. Thompson: Yes. I might suggest, without being overly pushy, that that is perhaps the area in need of examination. I am so delighted the committee is looking at that and taking testimony today.
The Chair: Is that the direction in which we are going, Ms. Bowser? A question even superseding that is — are you convinced the government is committed to the idea of an applicable, overarching, seeable, demonstrable, sustainable development strategy?
Ms. Bowser: That is a difficult question for me to answer, senator.
The Chair: Nobody can answer it better than you.
Ms. Bowser: We have been asked to carry out the review. I think that in and of itself says all that needs to be said.
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Thompson, I would like to pursue your comment again. Clearly, some department has to be responsible ultimately for this, not only for establishing overarching objectives but driving departments and focusing them on getting it done. Which department should that be? Should that be PCO, Treasury Board, the environment department or public works? If you were the Prime Minister, who would you assign to that?
Mr. Thompson: I would make a bad Prime Minister. I would not want to speculate on who should have it but clearly, in our view, there is a need for a driver, someone with sufficient clout to get the job done and to be assured that sustainable development is part of the federal government's management culture and management practice. I do not know who that is. In another hearing on another topic, we talked about an amalgam of two or three departments perhaps getting together to provide that central leadership and clout. There is a need for a driver, but it is not clear to us at this point who the driver should be or that we have one.
In reference, if I may senator, to some good comments around the table earlier, two tools have been put in place: the strategic environmental assessment tool that is not really on the table today so much, and the sustainable development strategy tool. If they did not exist, someone would have to invent them. The fact is that they do exist and have been around for quite a little while, but they are just not being used. If they were being used as intended, then one would easily be able to answer the concern you were expressing and say it is taken care of because the system will ensure it is taken care of. That is what we are hopeful the review of the SDS process, and the review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency of the SEA process, will contribute to. Why are these two tools not working, and what needs to change to make them work? Would it not be wonderful if we get to a point where they are working, and your legitimate concerns about new proposals for policies and programs and the management of existing ones can be allayed?
I am confident we will get there. The hearing we are having today on the SDS process is a good indication. Obviously, government departments are engaged, thanks to your encouragement. The Canadian people are engaged. We have never been at a better time to take a really good look at these two tools and at what needs to change, if anything, to make them work and then get on with it. Certainly, a fundamentally important part of that, in our view, is some form of overarching strategy.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Bowser, I have two questions for you. In your review, are you asking which department, what authority, which minister, which cabinet committee, should ultimately have responsibility for driving these SDSs throughout the government?
Ms. Bowser: You must have read my mind because I wanted to add that one of the things we will specifically need to deal with is rules and responsibilities around this. Yes, we will be looking at that.
Senator Mitchell: You are not doing that yet. You said we ``need'' to deal with it.
Ms. Bowser: We are working on it now. When I say we need to deal with it, we will need the government to make the decisions ultimately on it. We are looking at that now.
Senator Mitchell: Is there an environmental committee of cabinet now?
Ms. Bowser: Yes, there is the cabinet committee called environment and energy security.
Senator Mitchell: In your consideration of sustainable development in your own department, your sustainable development strategy, have you given any thought to this threshold of two-degrees-centigrade increase that the science is telling us is a tipping point, and will you be structuring your sustainable development strategy around that?
Ms. Bowser: Certainly, when our climate change scientists and policy people are looking at what we need to do and recommend to government around climate change, they are well aware of the two degrees you are referring to, and they make recommendations to the government on their policy with that, and other things as well, in mind.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Burack, we have neglected you. Has a green procurement program specifically been developed by your department and do you impose that on other departments?
Ellen Burack, Director General, Office of Greening Government Operations, Public Works and Government Services Canada: I am excited that you asked that question, Senator Mitchell. I was hoping someone would. Yes, you recommended it in 2005, and on April 1, 2006 a government-wide policy on green procurement was put into effect with much progress to date. By the end of this calendar year, we will have green standing offers in place to cover $4 billion in goods and services bought by the government.
Senator Mitchell: Is that $4 billion out of $250 billion?
Ms. Burack: It is out of $21.5 billion, some of which is not greenable. It is military improvements and what have you. Some of it is payments in lieu of taxes. Some things are not greenable. This is a government-wide initiative. Identifying the most significant categories of goods that will have the most significant environmental impact is quite complicated. It will not be worth our while to deal with every purchase of the Government of Canada. There are not necessarily great environmental benefits to be had with focusing on every product and every service. We are focusing on the things with the highest environmental impact, such as information technology, passenger vehicles, office supplies and printing services. Sixty categories of goods will be covered by the end of the year and, as I say, $4 billion worth of services that the government buys will be covered by green standing offers. It is only the beginning. It really is a process of continuous improvement. It does apply government wide. Every deputy head has responsibilities under the policy. We are pleased with the progress made to date. I will note that the commissioner gave it a satisfactory rating when he looked at an element of the policy, which was the commodity management process, the development of these green standing offers. That process was rated as satisfactory in the recent report he published in March.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Bowser, are the departments continuing to do their annual SDSs or is that on hold while this review is being done?
Ms. Bowser: The departments report on their sustainable development strategies through the departmental performance report each year. The last round, if you will, of strategies was the 2006-09 period. Therefore, they are continuing to report. The review will be the basis upon which the next round of strategies is done.
They do not have to be on hold because they are only reporting, not setting, plans. The next set of plans will be tabled in December 2009.
Senator Spivak: Before I ask my question, Ms. Burack, I would like to say that, if Wal-Mart can do it, the Government of Canada can do it.
There is a ``big elephant'' in the room, and the elephant is the political leadership. Just imagine what could happen if John Polanyi was the Minister of the Environment.
Commissioner, I congratulate you. How do you arrive at a situation where you can minimize the political slant or bias to come to a new approach? I am talking about all governments, regardless of what stripe they are.
I ask this because, in the minds of many people, we have taken this much of a step but what is really required — if you look at some of the scientific elements — is humungous steps. It is exactly like the Second World War. People still have not arrived there.
Should we get a dollar-a-year man in there? If you can think outside the box, what should we do?
Mr. Thompson: In terms of our audit of the sustainable development strategy process and the later one on the SEA process, we have been reporting on good management practice.
It has nothing to do with politics. It is whether the Government of Canada is managing the E&SD, environment and sustainable development, file properly. In that sense, I do not think we need to get into politics. The commissioner's office cannot. That is not our job. However, I do not think anyone needs to get into it.
Either the government bureaucrats — the managers in government who are a lot of hard-working, dedicated people — are managing with due regard for environment and sustainable development or they are not. Two good tools to help the government bureaucrats do that have been put in place. They are not working. We have reviews under way to find out why. That is all just good management practice.
The interest of this committee in these reviews and what comes out of them will, I think, strengthen government management so that E&SD is a part of the management culture of the federal government.
Senator Spivak: Sure. My question was not directed at anyone in the civil service to become political. Not at all. When you have a company, they look at the way they can mitigate. They have audit committees. They have people who are outside of the company to recommend salaries. They are not doing a good job but they have that.
Is there any kind of management process that could help that or do you think you have gone about as far as you can go?
Mr. Thompson: It might be quite appropriate to give these two reviews a chance to work. Ms. Bowser, I presume they will be looking at other countries. We are not alone in this. Sweden, Great Britain and Austria do it. There are many people around the world in this business of managing for sustainable development in an appropriate way. I am sure these reviews will look at those other jurisdictions and learn from them.
I would tend to give the processes that are now underway — these two reviews in particular — a chance to work. We will know by the end of the calendar year what the results are. Ms. Bowser indicated the SDS review will be completed in October and I understand the SEA review being done by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will be done by the end of the calendar year, if I remember correctly. That is not very long. I would give that a chance first.
If that does not work, I think more drastic action will be needed.
Senator Spivak: Thank you.
Senator Kenny: I want to direct a short supplementary to Ms. Burack. You said you were pleased with how the green purchasing plan was working. Does that mean we will see a significant improvement in the consultations when the annual report for the Alternative Fuels Act comes out?
Senator Spivak: Good for you.
The Chair: Senator Kenny is the author of the Alternative Fuels Act.
Ms. Burack: I will ask Mr. Redling from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to address the question related to the Alternative Fuels Act since I believe responsibility for that is more in his domain.
The Chair: Before he does, Mr. Burack, your department surely buys more vehicles than any other. Before we go to your colleague, are you buying green vehicles to the extent you can?
Ms. Burack: I will correct you. I do not believe that Public Works and Government Services Canada is the largest purchaser of vehicles among Canadian government departments. However, we are the department that has put together the green standing offer with respect to passenger vehicles, in particular. We have made progress in two areas with respect to vehicles. First, there is now a Treasury Board directive related to the executive fleet that requires all new purchases of executive vehicles to be either alternative-fuel, hybrid or high-efficiency vehicles.
Likewise, there is now a green standing offer for all passenger vehicles across government that new purchases should be from those listed in the standing offer. The ones in the standing offer are from those three areas — alternative-fuel, hybrid and high-efficiency vehicles.
Even though our department does not buy more vehicles, we enable the purchasing of green vehicles across government.
The Chair: Out of curiosity, who does buy the most vehicles? Mr. Redling would probably know the answer to that question.
Mr. Redling: I have asked my colleague who is our acting director of policy to help out with this question.
The Chair: Please tell us your name.
Mohan Denetto, Acting Director, Regulatory Affairs Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: My name is Mohan Denetto. I am Acting Director of Regulatory Policy at the Treasury Board Secretariat.
With regard to the report that will be tabled by the President of the Treasury Board, of the 4,648 vehicles purchased in 2006-07, the government acquired 354 alternative-fuel vehicles capable of operating on E85 ethanol fuel. That is one of the main reports.
In terms of setting the annual target, each government department sets an annual target for the purchase of alternative fuels. Then the data is used to determine the life cycle costs of alternative fuels versus vehicles that are powered on conventional fuels. Therefore, two criteria are used in terms of determining whether a purchase is necessary for an alternative-fuel vehicle. One is whether the value for money is there in terms of purchasing an alternative-fuel vehicle, and whether it can fulfil its operational needs.
For example, perhaps an alternative-fuel vehicle may not be the appropriate choice for a police vehicle due to engine requirements. That will give you a sense of what will be tabled.
Senator Kenny: I am surprised at the example you chose because I can think of a number of police forces that have entirely alternative-fuel vehicles.
Mr. Denetto: Another consideration in terms of purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles is the availability of alternative fuels. Currently, for E85 vehicles, the fuelling stations in certain areas are not available to fuel these vehicles. Therefore, that is another operational consideration in terms of the availability of the fuel and whether the government department in question would be able to acquire those fuels.
Senator Kenny: Another question, Mr. Chair? How large is the fleet? Are we still around 30,000? What per cent of the fleet is on alternative fuels at this point?
Ms. Burack: We are still around 30,000 with the purchase of about 4,000 new vehicles every year. I could not tell you what portion is alternative fuels at this point. I can probably find out for you if that is something you would like to know and get back to you.
Senator Kenny: If you could.
Senator Spivak: Could I ask a supplementary?
The Chair: Please let us know if you are able to find that out, Ms. Burack. Bearing in mind the things we heard about availability of fuel, if you need E85 fuel, you cannot be in a place where it is not available. The proportion we just heard was 3,400 new vehicles, and 400 give or take were alternative-fuel vehicles, which means 3,000 were not but some were probably trucks. If you can break it down for us to the extent that you can and get that information to the clerk, it would be much appreciated.
Ms. Burack: To add to that with one last point, Senator Kenny was asking whether we would see the impact of these changes in the standing offers and the executive directive. The standing offers are relatively new, so as the fleet turns over over time, we will see a change in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the government's administrative fleet. That is really what we are targeting more than a certain percentage of a certain type of technology.
Senator Spivak: Maybe it is time to expand the definition of alternative fuels because according to the latest trends, and what we heard at Globe 2008, the easiest transition is to electric vehicles. Canada manufactures them. They do not go more than certain miles an hour, but what does that matter to government vehicles?
Senator Kenny: In fairness, electric vehicles are covered in the act, senator.
Senator Spivak: Great. Why are not you looking at that? E85, forget it. It will be years before we have E85 stations or hydrogen. They really trashed hydrogen at that meeting because they said it just cannot happen in time. So why are you not looking at electric — they are manufactured in Canada?
Ms. Burack: Mr. Chair, I do not necessarily disagree that alternative vehicles are the way of the future. I would note for the committee, however, that one of the issues with electric vehicles is that the source of the electricity is different across the country. In some cases, it is as a result of coal or other more greenhouse-gas-intensive sources. In other places, there are less greenhouse-gas-intensive sources.
Given that our priority, when we were looking at the source of fuels and the technology in the automobiles we are purchasing, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure clean air standards, in the short term, that is not likely to be an avenue we pursue.
Senator Spivak: We need to get the person who is the expert on electric vehicles before our committee because he answers all those questions.
The Chair: We will try to do that. We will also take note of the commissioner's suggestion about a separate meeting for sustainable environmental assessments, which we might be able to do.
Do any of our guests have anything to add before I conclude the meeting?
You have been most helpful to us. If other questions occur, I hope you will allow us to write them to you and ask that you respond to the clerk. Thank you, senators and guests.
The committee adjourned.