The Environment Canada Policy Research Seminar Series

Hon. Bob Rae May 25, 2004

Throughout his political career, Bob Rae was attuned to environmental issues. In the 1980s, he was involved in setting up working groups on forests and energy. While in office, the Rae government paid particular attention to environmental protection. Under two successive Ministers of the Environment, Rae's New Democratic Party government developed and passed legislation to protect the environment.

The 1990s were a particularly difficult time for addressing environmental issues because of the social and economic context. Hence, a political platform allocating high priority to environmental protection presented a number of dilemmas. Environmental protection is an issue of interest to many people with both converging and diverging interests to uphold. The dynamic that exists between the general public, politics and the economic community is not easy to coordinate. In addition, the environmental protection agenda is vast and each of its components is a challenge in and of itself. Environmental protection is also part of the social contract, and care must be exercised at all times because policy decisions can sometimes have an impact on this social contract.

Environmental protection and the economy

The relationship between environmental protection and the business community is greatly influenced by current economic conditions. The relationship between the environment and the economy in Ontario was characterized by tension during the 1990s in part because of the economic context. During this period, Ontario experienced rising unemployment and interest rates as well as deficit increases. Within this context, governing while ensuring environmental protection became increasingly difficult. In trying economic times, the business community becomes resistant to the development or tightening of environmental legislation. Industries in Ontario were sensitive to the Rae government's new regulations. Moreover, the implementation of these regulations was difficult. Because of the recession, when it came to implementing these regulations, industries were primarily worried about the slowing of their activities and the effect on their freedom of action. Consequently, they demonstrated considerable resistance. Environmental protection was not the only bone of contention, however; others included social policies, labour policies, security, and so on.

Another factor that must be considered by a provincial government in developing an environmental policy is the situation in neighbouring provinces. For instance, the Rae government's Minister of Energy proposed a series of strong measures to address the issue of climate change. Intense discussions were held on this subject to determine whether it was appropriate for Ontario to adopt measures more stringent than those of the surrounding provinces. Climate change is a worldwide issue that must be addressed globally. What would be the value of having stringent measures in Ontario if the other provinces did not follow suit? The benefits of such measures were not clear. This is another type of dilemma governments face with regard to environmental protection.

Locally, however, conflict is more evident. If a company is forced to lay off a number of workers because of environmental considerations, the repercussions will be felt locally. Consequently, environmental policy implementation is a considerable challenge at the local level because it is full of pitfalls. For example, when the beer bottle recycling system was set up in Ontario, a number of businesses and unions representing aluminum workers protested rather vigorously. They felt these measures were designed to discourage the use of aluminum cans. The same happened in Oshawa with the automotive workers when consideration was given to the possibility of revising the legislation on automobile manufacturing from an environmental protection perspective. This factor must be taken into account by governments, since they are elected by the general public. In this sense, the NDP subsequently lost at the polls not because of the influence exerted by big business but because of public dissatisfaction, since the environmental protection message being conveyed by the NDP through its actions was misinterpreted by the communities affected by these decisions. The consequences of environmental protection are therefore not so much in the form of lost capital to foreign interests, but more in the form of job losses at the local level. One must not be mislead in the interpretation of this information.

Environmental protection versus changes in behaviour

Changing public behaviour also constitutes a difficult issue for government. Two realities must be taken into account in matters of environmental protection. The first concerns the geographic distribution of the consequences of an environmental problem. Environmental impacts can be widely distributed. Environmental problems and the benefits of environmental protection do not necessarily show up in the same locations. How can we strike a balance in this regard? The second reality concerns the notion of time. Environmental protection and restoration must be planned over a long period of time. How can the public be made to understand that today's efforts will come to greatest fruition in 10 or 20 years? In this situation, how can the public be encouraged to develop "greener" behaviour?

Economic mechanisms can be an interesting option. For example, raising consumer prices can change the behaviour of the population and, by extension, improve environmental protection. Thus, higher gasoline or electricity prices can change public consumption habits. In this sense, changing consumer behaviour can also constitute a means of exerting pressure on industry. If people change or reduce their consumption, the industrial sector concerned must take appropriate steps to make its product more accessible. This is what happened in the 1970s during the oil crisis. The automobile industry was forced to adapt to the conditions imposed upon it by manufacturing more fuel-efficient vehicles.

While economic mechanisms can be an incentive to change consumer behaviour, it is important to remain watchful because the government does not have the right to force people to change their behaviour. In general, people change their behaviour when they feel obliged to do so, that is, when they are living with the consequences of environmental problems. Unfortunately, environmental protection deals in abstracts owing to the geographic distribution of environmental impacts and the "incubation" or "resolution" time of a particular problem. This raises the issue of public education and awareness with regard to environmental problems. How can we ensure that the population clearly understands the issues involved? Indeed, it is a further challenge to persuade people to change their behaviour when the consequences of an environmental problem are not apparent to them. For example, it is a known fact that pollution in the Arctic is caused by the consumption patterns of people living farther to the south. However, it is difficult for the population of southern Canada to see the urgency of the problem because the consequences are only being felt thousands of kilometres away. The same holds true for climate changes whose consequences are not particularly apparent today, but could be pronounced in the future. How can a government manage this type of situation?

The environment is part and parcel of the social contract

Environmental protection entails major social responsibilities for a government. In fact, the environment is part and parcel of the social contract. Executives must bear this in mind, even during periods of economic slowdown. Striking a balance between these social responsibilities and other responsibilities is a complex and delicate task for a government.

The social contract for environmental management requires that public health be protected by effectively managing possible risks. This is done by preserving current regulations, keeping the necessary staff and maintaining investments in infrastructure. Easing existing environmental regulations to help foster an economic renewal is only an illusion since this will inevitably result in negative impacts on public health. It is also important to maintain a certain level of quality in the public service in order to ensure that law enforcement remains consistent and efficient. The best environmental legislation is worthless if there is no one to see to it that it is properly enforced. Investments must also be in good order to avoid the deterioration of facilities; the cost of renovating a facility is higher than the cost of regular maintenance. If these conditions are not met, good environmental conditions cannot readily be maintained.

Governing and protecting the environment presents a considerable challenge. The key to successful environmental protection is a rigorous enforcement of current acts and regulations, a Public Service that is functioning properly, continuing investment and listening to the public.