Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development—2004

7 December 2004

Johanne Gélinas,
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you for inviting us here today. Joining me are Neil Maxwell, John Affleck, John Reed, and Richard Arseneault, my senior management team who has led the environmental audit work of my office for several years.

You have given us an opportunity today to raise some issues from our recent Report.

In my October Report, I concluded that there was a lack of leadership, a lack of priority, and a lack of will on the part of the Government of Canada; it has failed to make real progress in sustainable development and environmental protection. This, in turn, has left gaps in leadership, gaps in implementation, and a growing credibility gap.

I think this committee can play a significant role in addressing these gaps, and I will present some thoughts on how that might be done at the end of my remarks.

When I tabled my report in October, I informed you of the findings in each of the six chapters. Today, I want to focus on a few areas that I believe are key to making progress on environmental protection and sustainable development in the federal government.

The first key area is results measurement. We looked at five international environmental agreements to determine if the responsible federal departments know whether specific objectives are being achieved. We found that for three of the agreements, the departments do not know if they are meeting the agreement objectives.

Another example in this area is the management of office solid waste. As the largest single enterprise in Canada, the federal government generates significant amounts of waste. Disappointingly, after 15 years, many departments do not know whether they have met the 50 per cent target to reduce office solid waste or whether they have met their more recent waste commitments in their sustainable development strategies, because they have not measured waste properly.

We know that establishing expectations and measuring results is a challenge, but it can be done. Two examples are the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Ozone Annex to the Canada-U.S. Agreement on Air Quality. For both these agreements, appropriate measurement has allowed Environment Canada to demonstrate progress.

If departments do not clearly establish what they plan to accomplish, and then measure to see how well they are doing, Parliament and Canadians are unable to assess progress. And what is not measured cannot be managed, let alone managed well.

The second key area is effective accountability for results. Here we have three examples from this year’s report, all from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The Department has made limited progress toward developing promised regulations on genetically engineered fish. It has not finalized the Wild Salmon Policy, even though a draft policy was released in 2000. Finally, we are not satisfied with the progress the Department has made in responding to the recommendations we made in three separate audits since 1997.

I am pleased to note, however, that our concerns in this area are being addressed by the House Committee on Fisheries and Oceans through hearings on our findings.

The third key area is better use of decision making and public policy tools to support environmentally sound development. Strategic environmental assessment of policy, plan, and program proposals is one of the most important environmental decision-making tools of the federal government, and it has been a requirement since 1990. It is supposed to ensure that environmental impacts are examined when new policies or programs are proposed; but after 14 years, it is still not being used to guide policy, plan, and program development.

I was surprised that our audit found such a low level of departmental commitment by departments to implementing a directive that came straight from Cabinet. Ministers are not getting the information they need before they make decisions with long-term environmental impacts, whether on individual proposals or something as important as the Budget. And, of course if that is not happening, Parliament and Canadians cannot be assured that proper environmental considerations are being included in the decision-making process.

In the context of making better use of available tools, let me turn to the audit we did on Finance Canada’s commitments in their sustainable development strategies, regarding the integration of the economy and the environment in the tax system. The tax system has a huge potential to create incentives or disincentives and influence the behaviour of individuals and corporations. Finance Canada is in a unique position to influence sustainable development in Canada—for example, through the Budget and taxation policies. It committed to examining the tax system to better integrate the economy and the environment.

In 1995,your committee made recommendations on how to proceed with a baseline study of federal taxes, grants, and subsidies to identify possible barriers and disincentives to sound environmental practices. The phased approach outlined in the government’s response was not applied in a comprehensive manner.

We found that Finance Canada has analyzed a number of individual tax measures, but it has not looked enough at the overall tax system. It is looking at the trees, not the forest. The Department was unable to demonstrate that it was meeting its commitments and, consequently, it cannot report to Parliament or Canadians on the influence the tax system is having for good or bad, on the attainment of sustainable development.

We note that Finance Canada has only recently begun to do strategic environmental assessments; moreover, we have doubts about its capacity to do them well.

It appears that the Department has not accepted our recommendations. It has not committed to any actions beyond those already in place. For example, the Department has not committed to acting on our recommendation for a systematic analysis of the impacts of the tax system on environment and sustainable development. This is not sufficient. Finance Canada is dragging its feet when it should be showing leadership. There are many questions that remain unanswered. I would be pleased to discuss our findings in more detail with you today.

Why is progress so slow in implementing sustainable development and environmental protection in the federal government? After all, the mandates and commitments are there, the knowledge of what to do and how to do it is there, and it can be done—some of our findings prove that.

I have been Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for four years now. In that time, I have observed that whenever a parliamentary committee asks questions of a department or requests reports on issues we raised, it generates action. In short, committee attention raises priority and instills the will to act.

In cases this year where departments have made significant commitments in response to our recommendations—for example with respect to international environmental agreements and strategic environmental assessment, this committee could request regular progress reports. In the case of Finance Canada, the committee might consider a report of its own that addresses the root causes of inaction.

Finally, on another matter, I would like to remind the committee that there were clear mandates given to the Deputy Ministers Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to develop an action plan following up on the many commitments Canada made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002. That committee was also to pursue the idea of a federal sustainable development strategy and the issues surrounding water. These initiatives have been promised, but to date there has not been anything delivered.

In pursuing some of these issues, this committee can help close the gaps in leadership, implementation, and credibility. Together, we can get Canada moving on the path to sustainable development—one to which we are all committed.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement; we welcome any questions that the committee may have.