Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development

May 2000 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet with the Committee to discuss the 2000 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

This is the fourth annual report since the position of Commissioner was established within the Office of the Auditor General. Much of the report was prepared under the leadership of Brian Emmett. The team Brian built is committed to continuing the work he began, and to serving Parliament and this Committee to the best of our ability.

Mr. Chairman, although the federal government has repeatedly stated its commitment to sustainable development - to striking a viable balance between economic, social and environmental goals, now and for future generations - it continues to have difficulty turning that commitment into action.

Partnerships have figured prominently in the federal government's approach to sustainable development, and for good reason. Responsibility for sustainable development is widely shared.

Typically, a number of organizations are responsible for one aspect of an issue or another, but none is responsible for the whole. Federal departments need to work together within the federal government, and the government needs to work with other governments and other partners to deliver results for Canadians efficiently and effectively.

That is what this year's report is about - how to make partnerships work.

Smog: Our Health at Risk

Managing these working relationships has proved difficult, as Chapter 4 illustrates. For a decade, the federal government has said that Canada's smog problem is a major public health issue that also poses a serious threat to the environment. While recognizing the difficulty of drawing a direct link, it has estimated that air pollution is responsible for 5,000 premature deaths a year in 11 major cities across Canada.

If that figure is correct, more Canadians die each year as a result of air pollution than as a result of motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, prostate cancer or melanoma. In addition, many more Canadians - one in five - suffer from respiratory or other problems that can be made worse by smog, placing a significant burden on our health care system.

Ten years ago, recognizing the serious consequences of ground-level ozone - a key component of smog - federal, provincial and territorial ministers of the environment endorsed a plan to reduce it. Their goal was to "fully resolve" the problem by 2005.

Governments started on the right foot, but failed to take the next steps. They agreed on a plan, but did not implement it as envisioned. Meanwhile, past improvements in air quality are being eroded by increased emissions from more vehicles and growing energy use. And pollutant levels once thought safe are now being questioned.

Canada's smog plan failed because the partnership that underpinned it did not work. While the federal government did most of what it said it would do, it failed in its most important task - to lead the national effort to reduce smog. Canada's smog problem is far from resolved. A new approach is needed.

Nor is smog an isolated case. In earlier reports, we have identified persistent problems with the federal government's management of key issues like climate change, toxic substances and biodiversity. Partnerships are not working as Canadians expect them to. Commitments to Canadians are not being met.

Working Together

But that need not be the case. Chapters 5 through 8 present the results of 17 case studies where departments have worked with provincial and territorial governments, with the private sector and with others to meet common objectives in areas like biotechnology, acid rain, forestry and mining. Some of the arrangements were successful - the First Nation Forestry Program and the Eastern Canada Acid Rain Program are good examples. Others were less so.

We conclude that developing and maintaining a good working relationship is important to a successful partnership, but strong accountability mechanisms are also critical. Central agencies have an important role to play in strengthening the management of issues that cut across mandates.

Building a good working relationship is a bit like building a house. You need a solid foundation, clear blueprints and attention to detail. The plumbers and the carpenters each need to know what to do, and what the others are doing. Weaknesses in any of those areas can cause the house to collapse.

Government Support for Energy Investments

We undertook the study reported in Chapter 3 to provide parliamentarians with information on the federal government's support for energy investments, and to determine whether that support favours the non-renewable energy sector.

We were particularly interested in the tax system because it is less transparent than direct spending. And we also wanted to explore why energy from renewable resources - other than large-scale hydro - makes up such a small portion of Canada's energy mix.

While most energy-related federal spending and tax incentives have historically been directed to non-renewable resources (the predominant source of energy in Canada), that situation has changed significantly. In recent years the federal government has reduced spending, eliminated some tax provisions related to non-renewable energy and tightened others. It has also expanded some tax provisions for renewable energy.

We also found that many renewable energy and energy efficiency projects do not currently have the characteristics that make them attractive to investors. Given the barriers we identified in the study, the federal government may wish to consider new strategies and approaches to achieve its objective of encouraging more investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Greening Government

Chapter 1 reports on implementation of the sustainable development strategies that departments tabled in the House of Commons in 1997. Those strategies are a key part of the federal government's overall approach to sustainable development, and monitoring their implementation is an important part of my mandate.

Strategy implementation is progressing, with departments reporting that 20 percent of their commitments have been met, compared with 11 percent last year. And we observed improvements in the management practices that support strategy delivery.

I remain concerned, however, that most departments do not report in a way that allows parliamentarians and the public to judge whether the strategies are on track or whether corrective action is needed.

Departments are now preparing their second strategies for presentation to the House by the end of this year. Last December, we released a document setting out our expectations for those strategies. I expect to see a significant improvement in the quality of strategies this time. We will be providing a preliminary assessment of those strategies in our next report.

Chapter 2 asks whether the federal government has the information it needs to manage the environmental consequences of its own operations. We found that progress has been slow and uneven in developing common measures. As a result, the federal government cannot monitor or report on its overall progress.

Follow-up

Finally, Mr. Chairman, Chapter 9 presents the first follow-up on the work we have done since the position of Commissioner was established. Follow-up helps us determine whether departments have adequately addressed our earlier observations and recommendations. We looked at the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, ozone layer protection, biodiversity and environmental assessment.

I am satisfied with progress in two areas - ozone protection and biodiversity. I am not happy with progress on hazardous waste or environmental assessment.

Overall, progress has been slow. After two years, only five percent of our recommendations have been addressed fully. On 53 percent, progress has been unsatisfactory. Departments need to accelerate their efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that all of the chapters in this year's report will be of interest to the Committee. I know that the Committee cannot deal with all subjects raised in the report, but we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the key issues, today and in future meetings.

We would be happy to respond to questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.