:
I'd like to call this meeting to order. On behalf of the committee, I want to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses.
This meeting is broken down into two separate meetings, really. We're going to have a one-hour meeting with the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. He's accompanied by Mr. William Young, the parliamentary librarian, and Mr. Sahir Khan, also with that particular office. I understand he is a new employee.
I have a few remarks by way of background, colleagues. The Parliamentary Budget Office was just established in the last several weeks. Authority for this position came from the federal Accountability Act. It's my belief that the impetus for the creation of this particular office came in part from some of the inconsistencies in federal forecasting that we've seen in the federal government. It's fair to say that over the past 10 years a lot of our revenue projections have been out by anywhere from $10 million to $15 million.
However, there were reports, particularly one by Mr. O’Neal, that confirmed some of the methodology used by the Department of Finance. In any event, Parliament does approve its budget and its spending allocations based upon certain assumptions delivered to Parliament by the Department of Finance, and if these assumptions do not prove to be correct, then of course the credibility of Parliament itself becomes eroded. On the other hand, it would be difficult to see a situation where we would replicate the Congressional Budget Office, as we see in the United States, or replicate the whole budgeting and forecasting apparatus that exists in the Department of Finance.
So the office has been established. Mr. Page is new on the job. I'm not so sure the job description has been totally defined. We're very pleased to have him with us for an hour. I understand both he and Mr. Young have opening statements, and I'm going to turn the floor over to them. Who will go first, gentlemen?
Mr. Young.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public accounts committee. Good morning.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you. As you mentioned, I'm here today with Kevin Page, Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer. As you're aware, Parliament legislated these new functions, creating an officer of the Library of Parliament, a position that would operate within the library's established mandate of providing authoritative , reliable, non-partisan, and independent knowledge and information to parliamentarians. For me, and I think for you as parliamentarians, the creation of a Parliamentary Budget Officer constitutes a significant initiative to strengthen Parliament's ability to hold the executive to account.
[Translation]
As the oversight committee for the Public Accounts of Canada, I believe that you can play an important role in making the Parliamentary Budget Officer an effective instrument for Parliament, one that complements, not competes with the work and resources currently available to improve Parliamentarians' understanding of the fiscal position of the Government.
[English]
What is fundamentally important is that a Parliamentary Budget Officer adds value to your work. As such, I know we would benefit greatly from your insights as we begin implementing new services through this new office and officer.
[Translation]
In fact, I might suggest exploring a consultative approach as a vital part of the Library's efforts to shape these new functions to serve Parliamentarians effectively.
[English]
An ongoing informal dialogue with members will help us deal with the questions that will certainly arise as statutory provisions are interpreted and given life through the delivery of this new service. What are the specific needs and requirements of parliamentarians? How should priorities be set in the face of competing demands?
Who better to answer these questions than the clients of these services? I hope you agree.
Kevin Page, the individual who took on the challenge of being Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer, started work with us just after Easter. For those of you who may not have seen his curriculum vitae, copies are available.
Kevin is one of very few individuals with experience working on relevant fiscal forecasting, policy, and expenditure portfolios within all three economic agencies of the federal government. This broad perspective will be of tremendous value to parliamentarians, and certainly, if required, to this committee.
[Translation]
As you will see, Kevin is a “people person” with a good sense of humor and a great reputation.
[English]
His phone is already ringing with calls from skilled professionals from both inside and outside government who want to work with him. I think this is great news for Parliament. It's also a huge opportunity for us to build the library's research capacity and to add value to the services we already provide to parliamentarians.
Thank you, again, for your invitation.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. I would also like to thank the parliamentary librarian, Mr. William Young, for all his efforts in implementing the position to increase the Library of Parliament's capacity to serve Parliament, and Mr. Allan Darling, who's not here today, a retired senior public servant who worked diligently with the parliamentary librarian to make this position a reality.
Mr. Chair, the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer underwent a 33% increase in staffing this week with the hiring of one of two directors, the director of expenditure and revenue analysis, Mr. Sahir Khan. Mr. Khan has experience in the government with two central agencies: Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. But he also has a long résumé in the financial community, working in New York City, in consulting firms in the area of turnaround environments. So I welcome Mr. Sahir Khan, our first new director.
We will also have a 25% increase in our staff next week with the addition of another director, the director of economic and fiscal analysis, Mostafa Askari. Mr. Askari will start on Monday. He also has substantive experience in the government. He's working now at Health Canada, but he has worked at the Department of Finance as well. He has also worked at the International Monetary Fund and at the Conference Board of Canada. So he'll bring wide experience in the area of fiscal analysis, economic analysis, and forecasting.
[Translation]
In my opening remarks, I would like to take the opportunity to tell you how I approach the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I have four messages. They are the same that were recently given to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament and to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
It is an honour and a privilege to serve Parliament. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. We also have an important and timely opportunity to move forward with the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The building process will take time. Today marks an early but important step in the consultation process.
I am honoured to be Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer and to be an independent officer within the Library of Parliament, an institution with a long and prestigious history in Canada that has a tradition of providing objective, non-partisan analysis and advice to Parliament.
[Translation]
It is important that members of the Joint Committee be comfortable with me as their Parliamentary Budget Officer. Trust must be accompanied by professional, unbiased and competent advice for me to be an effective servant of Parliament.
[English]
As the parliamentary librarian has noted, I have spent more than 25 years in the federal public service. Many of these years were spent in central agencies where I had the opportunity to work with others in the provision of advice related to economic, fiscal, and expenditure management issues. This is my first opportunity, however, to work as an independent officer of the Library of Parliament. I have lots to learn about how Parliament works, and I am looking forward to serving and working with you in this new capacity.
[Translation]
I believe we have an important and timely opportunity with the creation of this position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. The importance stems from Parliament's “power of the purse”, which is a fundamental feature of democracy.
[English]
The genesis and momentum for the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer role reflect a number of important concerns expressed by parliamentarians over the past decade. The chair has noted some of these. First, there were concerns that the size of fiscal forecasting errors was hindering public and parliamentary debate on budgetary choices. Second, there were concerns that more was required to strengthen accountability and effective scrutiny by Parliament of government spending and future spending plans. Third, there were concerns that private members' bills needed to be costed early in the legislative process and better integrated in the budget-making process.
[Translation]
The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is outlined in the Accountability Act, and it is now part of the Parliament of Canada Act. It has three components.
[English]
The first is providing objective analysis to the Senate and the House of Commons about trends in the economy, the state of the nation's finances, and the estimates of the government. The second is providing related research, when requested, by a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons, including the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. And the third is estimating the financial costs of proposals introduced by a member of either House other than a minister of the crown or by a committee.
The mandate includes one important provision that gives the power of the Parliamentary Budget Officer access at convenient times to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department, which is required for the performance of his or her mandate. This will stretch the budget of the officer and the analytical capacity of the supporting team. Mr. Khan is quite happy we have that provision.
[Translation]
I believe the creation of the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer comes at an opportune time.
First, the economic and fiscal situation of Canada is relatively strong as measured by many macroeconomic indicators. It can be argued that it is better to launch this role in a period of relative economic strength rather than weakness.
Second, we are in a Parliament with a minority government. Political scientists such as Professor Peter Russell have noted that this encourages debate about budgetary choices as well as negotiation and compromise on legislation.
[English]
Professor Russell will be speaking at the library's distinguished visitor series this Friday from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
As we look ahead, we can envisage many important and interesting debates. These include current debates about the impact of the weaker U.S. economy on Canada's economy and fiscal situation and the adjustment pressures in manufacturing related to a high dollar and high input prices. They also include important longer-term debates about raising the living standard in Canada; ensuring balanced income growth amongst Canadians; addressing the issues related to aging demographics; ensuring environmentally sustainable economic growth; and realigning fiscal resources to new priorities in a balanced budget framework.
As well, as we have seen in recent years, particularly by the work of this committee, there are always challenging initiatives that are launched by government departments and agencies with good intentions, which benefit from additional scrutiny by Parliament. In these types of cases, the Parliamentary Budget Officer should play a positive role in supporting Parliament through the provision of financial analysis based on best practices.
Building the capacity to support the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer will take time. A number of months are required to build and integrate new analytical capacity within the Library of Parliament. That process has started. With the 2008 budget tabled and the 2008-09 estimates now before standing committees, the next key milestone in the normal budgetary cycle for the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be the 2008 economic and fiscal update in the autumn and the 2009 pre-budget consultations.
[Translation]
One can envisage a number of overlapping phases of development in the building process: first, a consultation phase with Parliamentarians on priorities and potential outcomes, as well as consultations with departments and agencies on the way we will exchange information;
[English]
secondly, there will be a team-building phase in which the office will be staffed within the Library of Parliament to serve parliamentarians; and thirdly, there will be an implementation phase in which products and services are provided to parliamentarians.
[Translation]
In the context of establishing the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a number of concerns have been raised publicly, including concerns about the independence of the advice, the size of the budget for the position and whether or not the Officer will provide independent forecasts.
[English]
In this regard, I wish to note that the Parliamentary Budget Officer will maintain the tradition of the Library of Parliament in the provision of independent, non-partisan advice. I will utilize all the resources provided to it in the most effective manner possible, which includes leveraging current resources in the library, in federal departments and agencies through the provision of information, and to external stakeholders interested in serving Canadians. I will work with private sector forecasters and the Department of Finance to ensure that there's a satisfactory comprehension and oversight by parliamentarians on the economic and fiscal outlook, the related risks, and the implications for fiscal planning and budgetary choices.
[Translation]
As I close, I want to thank you for giving me this important opportunity to open the dialogue on the implementation of the role of Parliamentary Budget Officer.
[English]
It will be an honour and a privilege to support your efforts to ensure that the revenue and spending measures that are authorized by Parliament are fiscally sound, that they meet the needs of Canadians with available resources, and that they are implemented effectively and efficiently.
I am looking forward to hearing the views of honourable members on their expectations for the office and how it can best support their activities.
:
Thank you for the question, sir.
In terms of the capacity we'll need and how we will go about putting this capacity in place, as I said, the first phase is the consultation phase. It's really important that we take full opportunity for these types of meetings and have opportunities to meet with you individually or in groups so that we can get a better sense of those priorities in order to best serve you. I think that's actually a very important step.
Second, we've already started, as I've noted, with the hiring of Mr. Khan, one of the directors for revenue and expenditure analysis, and another director, Mostafa Askari, to help us with the economic and fiscal analysis. I consider it a very key step within the first month to hire the management team.
These are both folks who have extensive backgrounds in government and in the private sector in dealing with the kinds of issues that have been highlighted in the mandate, as you noted, sir--economic and fiscal trends, costing and related issues, and additional support on scrutiny with respect to the estimates process. Over the next several months, in addition to the consultations, there will be some additional hiring; we will go out and try to build the teams under Mr. Khan and Mr. Askari so that we have that kind of capacity.
We're also looking at building relationships with government departments and private sector forecasters as well in order to carry out this mandate. That will be a big part of our momentum going through the summertime. We're hoping that by the fall we will be partially staffed up and will have built these relationships with our private sector colleagues and with departments, particularly in terms of establishing those protocols for the provision of information, so we'll be in a place to actually start providing information as we look towards the 2009 budget.
Beyond then, sir, I have a hard time in terms of what those additional steps would be, but again, come the fall, we'll have built sufficient capacity for us to hope to play a role in helping you with respect to the implementation of the mandate.
:
Thank you for the question, sir.
First of all, I'll just comment about the reputation of the Congressional Budget Office: it is stellar. It is a highly used institution, perhaps even a model that we can aspire to, even though it exists within a very different system, a congressional system versus our Westminster system.
I don't have statistics today to tell you how the Congressional Budget Office has fared in terms of its projections one, two, or three years out relative to the executive, or in fact even relative to other forecasts that are provided in the United States. Having said that, I think one of the things we will seek to understand is how the Congressional Budget Office has built its capacity over time in producing those kinds of forecasts and maintaining that kind of independent, non-partisan approach.
In terms of other countries, I believe a paper was produced by the Library of Parliament that looked at what exists in other countries that is similar in nature to the Parliamentary Budget Officer role in Canada. Of those institutions, the Congressional Budget Office actually has the longest history, starting in the mid-1970s. You've actually seen quite a few countries start to build this type of capacity in recent years, particularly over the past decade or decade and a half. We've seen it in Korea, in Sweden, in the Philippines, and in the Netherlands. The U.K. has built a scrutiny office. Not all of them actually produce independent forecasts; some of them do, some of them don't. I apologize; I don't have an understanding of how their forecast records would compare with their executives' or with the private sector forecasts.
Underlying the provision of this advice, what we would hope to do in looking at forecasting information is provide a good sense of what's behind those forecasts in terms of assumptions--what the differing assumptions are, what the related risks are, and how they would impact budgetary choices.
:
I think I should take this question.
Parliamentary institutions, including the Library of Parliament, are not subject to the same reporting relationships as government departments or agencies. We are the legislative branch of government; we work for and with you, and we're not subject to having to report in the same way as the departments and agencies of government. So, in effect, we are independent.
The issue with regard to the officers of Parliament, you'll have to raise with them. Their situation may be different from ours.
Nothing we do is vetted by government departments. I report, through the authority of the Parliament of Canada Act, to the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate. They are advised by a standing joint committee of both Houses on the Library of Parliament with regard to my operations. I'll be appearing before them in two weeks' time on my estimates.
Essentially, our policies reflect, we hope, the best practices that can be found or put in place, but they're applied through the parliamentary lens only to our operations.
Obviously, my appointment and those of the Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Senate are Governor in Council appointments, and as such, the Privy Council Office has determined that we must be subject to the performance management program that applies to other Governor in Council appointments.
I will say, however, that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has one level of independence even higher than that, since his is a GCQ appointment, like those of members of quasi-judicial tribunals, and therefore his performance pay is built into his base salary, unlike those of either the Parliamentary Librarian or the Clerk of the House of the Clerk of the Senate.
I hope that answers your question.
:
I would like to call the meeting to order.
I want to welcome everyone here.
[Translation]
Welcome.
[English]
Colleagues, this meeting deals with chapter 10, “Management Tools and Government Commitments—Greening of Government Operations”, of the March 2008 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.
We're very pleased to have with us today, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Ron Thompson, interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. He is accompanied by Paul Morse, principal, sustainable development strategies, audits and studies; and Mr. David Willey, director, sustainable development strategies, audits, and studies.
We also have with us, from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Daphne Meredith, associate deputy minister.
From the Department of the Environment, we have Ian Shugart, associate deputy minister. And from the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Daniel Jean, associate secretary, and Michael Presley, executive director, regulatory affairs division.
On behalf of all committee members, I want to extend to everyone a very warm welcome.
I understand you have opening comments, Mr. Thompson, so I'm going to turn the floor over to you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I must say I'm delighted to be here to discuss chapter 10 of our 2008 status report, tabled in Parliament on March 6.
As you mentioned, joining me at the table is Paul Morse, principal responsible for this chapter, and David Willey, lead director of this work.
As the committee knows, status reports from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada show what the departments and agencies have done to address issues the office has raised in some of its past reports. In determining whether progress on an issue is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, the office takes into account the complexity of the issue and the amount of time that has passed since the original audit.
[Translation]
This is the first time that a Status Report has been tabled in Parliament by a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It deals with the government's management of environment and sustainable development issues.
Of the fourteen chapters in our Status Report, five show satisfactory progress. However, progress in nine areas is unsatisfactory--largely because the government did not follow through on commitments it made when responding to past environment and sustainable development audits.
The first three chapters deal with chemicals management, and we were pleased to report satisfactory progress. Chapters 4 through 7 focus on ecosystems, and we have rated progress as unsatisfactory. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 relate to management tools and, once again, we have rated progress as unsatisfactory. Chapters 11 to 14 look at actions taken in response to environmental petitions; for two of these audits we have reported satisfactory progress and for the other two, unsatisfactory progress.
[English]
I would like to now turn to chapter 10, which I understand the committee is particularly interested in. This chapter looks at selected aspects of how the government has gone about greening its operations. Our audit revealed that as Canada's largest employer, purchaser, and landowner, the government has a long way to go before it can claim to be a leader in this area. Although progress has been made in greening the government's new commodity management approach to procurement, guidance for departments to use in preparing their sustainable development strategies is weak.
These strategies are tabled in Parliament every three years by federal departments. They are intended to inform Parliament about the significant social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the department's policies and programs and how each department plans to address them. The latest strategies were tabled in December of 2006 and the next round is due in December of 2009.
In conducting this audit, we examined guidance for building energy, vehicle fleet emissions, and green procurement, which were the priority areas agreed to by officials for the 2006 sustainable development strategies. We found that guidance was timid at best. Targets were not specific or mandatory, were open to interpretation, and reiterated previous objectives. Not surprisingly, the government is not in a position to know what progress is being made in greening its overall operations.
We point out that other countries have adopted quite a different approach. For example, in the United Kingdom and also in the United States, top-down direction on greening is given to government departments from the highest levels. We recommended that Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, in consultation with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Environment Canada, and others clarify leadership and responsibility for a number of things: for providing simple direction and guidance to departments on greening their operations; for establishing meaningful and aggressive government-wide targets; and for developing a government-wide strategy for monitoring and reporting results. PWGSC agreed with our recommendation.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, this hearing is particularly timely given that guidance for the December 2009 round of sustainable development strategies will likely need to be finalized over the next few months The Committee may wish to ask departmental officials about the progress they are making in clarifying leadership and responsibility issues; strengthening guidance for building energy, vehicle fleet emissions and green procurement; and expanding guidance to cover other areas, such as waste management.
PWGSC officials have provided us with an early draft of the Department's detailed action plan to implement our recommendations. We have provided comments to the Department on this draft and made a number of suggestions to strengthen it. Although we have not conducted an audit or a full review of the draft plan, I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that our suggestions have been incorporated into the Department's final version.
[English]
I am hopeful that the interests of parliamentarians through committees such as this one, Mr. Chairman, will encourage the government to strengthen its management of environment and sustainable development issues and become a recognized model of how Canadian firms and individuals can and should green their operations and their day-to-day activities.
That concludes our opening statement. We would be very pleased to answer any questions the committee may have a bit later.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the March 2008 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on greening government operations.
The audit addressed two separate but related aspects of greening operations: the guidance that was provided to departments for preparing their 2007 to 2009 sustainable development strategies; and greening commodity management.
Public Works and Government Services Canada agrees with the commissioner's recommendations. We have developed a detailed action plan, which has been reviewed by the commissioner. I am happy to table this plan with the committee today.
In the case of greening procurement, the commissioner found that satisfactory progress is being made. Members will know that a green procurement policy was issued in April 2006.
We have already developed government-wide standing offers for purchasing 30 categories of goods and services, and 30 more are expected to be ready this year. Once these are in place, green standing offers will exist for commodities representing over $4 billion.
As it relates to the provision of central direction and guidance on greening to other government departments, the commissioner recommended that roles and responsibilities of departments be clearly defined. In our response, we undertook to clarify roles and responsibilities by April 2008. I am happy to report that this first step has been completed.
Even before we were made aware of the commissioner's recommendation, PWGSC had begun discussions with Treasury Board Secretariat, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada to clarify the roles and responsibilities of these four key partners and all departments around greening government operations. It was generally agreed that to make further progress, new approaches would be required and that all four departments had a role in providing direction government-wide.
As a result of these discussions, it has now been agreed that Public Works will assume the lead for greening government operations. This will involve developing overall policy direction and guidance, facilitating information sharing, setting reporting standards, and reporting on progress.
Treasury Board Secretariat, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada also have essential roles to play in providing guidance and advice in their respective areas of expertise, such as government-wide reporting and levers for directing and guiding action in the case of the Treasury Board Secretariat; priority-setting, use of the regulatory toolbox, technical expertise, and appropriate integration with sustainable development strategies in the case of Environment Canada; and expertise in greenhouse gas emissions reporting and on energy, water, and natural resources issues in the case of Natural Resources Canada.
PWGSC will be responsible for effective leadership of this horizontal endeavour, while we and our three key partners will be responsible for creating a solid framework. But it is all departments and agencies across the government that must be held accountable for, and recognized for their progress in, changing the environmental footprint of federal operations.
While I recognize that more needs to be done, we have made significant progress in recent years, particularly with respect to green procurement, green buildings, and greening the fleet.
I am prepared and would be happy indeed to take your questions on the commissioner's report.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As my colleague from Public Works and Government Services has just said, the Department of the Environment and other departments are engaged with them in clarifying the roles and responsibilities having to do with greening government operations. We're committed, for our part, to working with PWGSC under their leadership.
Perhaps it would be useful to the committee if I briefly outlined the four specific roles that Environment Canada has in regard to greening government operations.
First of all, we provide advice to Public Works and Government Services on priority areas for action. Greening government is, of course, about putting into effect what the government is talking about in policy terms. There should be a relationship between the government's environmental priorities and the actions it takes as a corporate citizen. Environment Canada, therefore, will advise Public Works and Government Services on making the choices that square well with environmental priorities.
Secondly, we are engaged with them in providing technical support. In the example of greening commodity management, which is another topic within chapter 10, Environment Canada was one of the sponsors for the April 2006 federal policy on green procurement. As part of our role in sponsoring this policy, we provided technical expertise on environmental issues to those who procure the goods and services on behalf of the Government of Canada. This expertise is provided to the office of greening government operations in PWGSC as one element in their work to issue procurement instruments for the goods and services purchased most frequently.
Third, as you know, we are the coordinating lead for the sustainable development strategies. In that role Environment Canada works with Public Works to ensure that greening government operations is appropriately integrated into the sustainable development process.
Fourth, and finally, Environment Canada can use its regulatory power when that is appropriate, when the circumstances call for it, to further the greening of government operations. For example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives the government the authority to issue regulations concerning government operations on federal and aboriginal lands. One such regulation pertains to storage tank systems for petroleum products and allied petroleum products. In fact, a new proposed regulation being worked on now will have a broader scope of application, and it will provide a more comprehensive framework to effectively prevent pollution from storage tank systems of federal government operations. I offer that as one example.
We look forward, of course, to working with PWGSC in their leadership role through these functional roles that we have as we move forward on greening government operations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to be here today.
Treasury Board Secretariat is a supporter of green government operations and has committed to building on the efforts to date and ongoing improvements. The Treasury Board Secretariat is pleased to work with Public Works and Environment Canada on greening government operations. Public Works has a great deal of operational expertise in these areas and has influence over much of the federal government's real estate holdings and procurement. Therefore, Public Works is well placed to lead efforts in this regard.
[Translation]
The role that will be played by the Treasury Board Secretariat relating to the greening of government operations will complete and support those efforts. As a central agency, we will support the leadership of Public Works Canada by cooperating with them and with other departments to establish government-wide targets.
We will help Public Works Canada to issue guidance or guidelines as required to make those targets compulsory within the whole of government. The Treasury Board Secretariat will also see to it that the departments provide appropriate reports on their success relating to those of targets in the context of their Reports on Plans and Priorities and their Departmental Performance Reports, and this information will be shared with Public Works Canada.
[English]
In partnership with Public Works, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada, we can provide strong leadership on this file. We have worked hard to establish and refine clear roles for each other and to effectively communicate those to departments in order to ensure that progress is made on this important aspect of sustainable development.
Let me highlight from Treasury Board Secretariat's perspective some of the progress made with respect to generating a greener federal government.
TBS, Environment Canada, and Public Works have collaborated to further strengthen reporting requirements across government. We now require greening government operations reporting through both the RPP and through reporting on implementing the policy on green procurement.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities requires that departments submit information on how they plan to take account of environmental issues and to include them in their decision-making process, whether it be for purchasing, for their objectives relating to green purchases or for related benefits.
At the same time, Treasury Board Secretariat will focus its efforts to further simplify government operations according to the promise made by the government to reduce bureaucratic hassles which too often stifle progress.
[English]
In keeping with this approach, we will work with public Works, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada to green existing policies and directives before we create new ones. This will ensure that we're not adding to the web of rules.
In conclusion, we recognize that greening government operations can progress more rapidly, and additional effort is needed to achieve this. Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Works, and Environment Canada will continue to act on our path forward for greening government operations.
This now concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to respond to any questions.
Let's take a look at the text here; chapter 10, I believe it is. What pops up again and again in Mr. Thompson's reports, and through the commissioner's office now for several years, is that it's always difficult to understand just who's in charge of what. I understand and I sympathize with the notion of horizontal management, and that it's three or four departments coming together. PWGSC, I just heard, is playing a more prominent role now in leading this charge.
I want to table, for the interest of colleagues and for those who are here as witnesses, Bill , Mr. Godfrey's bill. It's the opposition bill that is going to call upon Canada to create a new sustainable development act. Flowing from that would be a new office at PCO, and perhaps even a new cabinet committee where the buck would stop, where somebody would be accountable and responsible for driving this change that clearly isn't being driven through the 28 mandatory departmental sustainable development strategies.
If that kind of centralized authority resided in PCO, where they steer and don't row, would that help all of you achieve your green procurement objectives through the federal government? Could you help me understand this?
I just want to read from the text of this report, at page 6, paragraph 10.9, where Mr. Thompson writes:
The focus of this follow-up audit was to assess the progress selected departments have made in responding to the underlying issues derived from certain recommendations, observations, and commitments made in prior years with respect to certain aspects of greening government operations. The selected issues were derived primarily from our 2005 audit of green procurement while taking into account related points we have raised over the past 10 years.
I think that's what the real concern is here now in the committee, that there have been so many years go by, so many missed opportunities, and now we arrive at a situation. I know that I, for one, am going to look for real signs that change is going to happen now, because obviously there have been numerous times in the past where people have had good intentions but they've gone really nowhere.
I just want to refer to one other thing before I ask you a question. On page 9, in paragraph 10.22, the greening officials, the OGGO officials, stated at the Standing Committee on Government Operations:
As a result, we noted that of 28 mandatory departmental sustainable development strategies tabled for 2007, seven had included all the government-wide greening....
They had made it very clear that they had no capability of forcing any department to actually fulfill its obligations.
First of all, so we can understand how we arrived here, why was the guidance on greening provided by PWGSC so non-specific, and what's going to change from today's date, based on the fact that you've agreed with the recommendation, so that we have some confidence that there's going to be significant development in the path forward?
:
Mr. Chairman, first, I don't know that it's fair for us to adduce from the report that 21 out of 28 haven't met their targets. I think that's maybe stretching things a bit. But it's maybe not the most important issue either.
In terms of targets, we find it difficult to have a situation develop where 28 government departments and agencies are able to essentially set their own targets, their own yardsticks, and measure success or failure against that standard. I don't think personally that's the way this should be run.
I think one needs to get a sense, for the government overall, of what the government is trying to achieve in the way of greening its operations, and to then back those initiatives up into individual departments and agencies and say, you're responsible for helping us do this and here are your targets, which we are expecting you to achieve. They're not something the departments have necessarily created only by themselves; they're a set of targets that would have been developed by the government for the government as a whole.
Then you'd have the government report back in total how it's doing in meeting its targets and would have individual departments and agencies who are responsible for contributing to that meeting of targets held accountable, perhaps through their DPRs, for how well they've done in helping the government as a whole move forward.
These are the kinds of targets, sir, that we're talking about. The government, as we've heard today, is not there yet.
:
Before we go to the second round, I have a few questions myself.
I've been at this end of table listening to every question. As has been indicated, this has been going on, I guess, for 13 years since the first strategy was implemented by government. Since then, we've had a lot of studies and reports. About every second year the environment and sustainable development commissioner goes in and does an audit, and recommendations are agreed to, and audits are usually not satisfactory.
Another office was opened up in 2005. Every year there have been more commitments and undertakings. But it doesn't seem that anything at all ever gets done in the whole thing. This is 13 years later, and we're here now; another audit comes in, and it's unsatisfactory, and the recommendations are agreed to.
I know it's a horizontal issue and it goes across departments, but there seems to be a total vacuum in leadership. I'm trying to point to some individual in government to say that this person or that office or organization is responsible. To me, it's just a big conceptual mess out there. I'm not following at all as to who is responsible.
I don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling that if we come back in April 2010 we're going to be one step further ahead, because I don't see the person identifying himself or herself as being in charge of this file on a pan-government basis and saying it's going to get done. I don't hear that out there.
Mr. Thompson, my question is to you. You've been on this for a while; you've done your audit. Is there anyone out there in government who really cares about this particular issue, in your opinion?
:
This is to all the witnesses.
In 1992 Brian Mulroney went to Rio and did the right thing. He signed on to the Agenda 21, he signed on to an earth declaration, he signed on to and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and he signed on to the international forestry convention.
One of the things this compelled this country to do, under Mr. Mulroney—and he did the right thing—was to make a decision that sustainable development, of which green procurement is a subset, would land in the Prime Minister's office. That's why we created the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which used to report to the Prime Minister but now functionally reports to the Minister of the Environment, under the new government.
Mr. Godfrey's bill, if I can come back to this and get a reaction from you, is now calling upon the country to make a shift. We would create a cabinet committee on sustainable development. It would have to devise a national sustainable development strategy—not departmental, not 28 of them, but a national SD strategy.
It would have within it targets: for the short term, one to three years; for the medium term, five to ten years; for the long term, twenty-five years. It would have a firm implementation strategy for meeting each target, which would include, for example, caps on emissions, economic instruments to be used, penalties to be paid, an ecosystem-based management approach, and so on and so forth.
And it actually goes further, because it would then require that the Clerk of the Privy Council, who signs the performance contracts and negotiates them confidentially with each deputy minister, would now hold the deputy minister accountable for performance on sustainable development, including green procurement.
So for those of us who golf—and I don't, but I've driven by golf courses and heard people yelling at the golf ball to sit down on the green—we want this to sit down on the green. It needs to be centred somewhere, so that the situation isn't “everybody's job is nobody's job”.
Could you give us an understanding, if this were actually put at PCO—with an under-secretary of cabinet, for example, responsible for steering, not rowing—would that not help us overcome some of these horizontal challenges we have and these siloed changes we have?
:
Mr. Chairman, I will answer the part of the question that I can within my limits, if I may.
There are two points I could make.
In the report of the commissioner with respect to sustainable development strategies, the recommendation is made for a comprehensive report by October of this year on the issue of the coordination of SD strategies, including the issues of what I might call organization and governance. The Department of the Environment is doing that, and we are on track. We are doing the analysis, we're working with the other departments, and we will complete that report in the time recommended.
The issues of coordination and governance and how targets are set—the benchmarks that are used and so on—are included in that report as per the recommendation of the commissioner. So from the point of view of some of the analysis as officials, we are engaged in that right now.
As my second point, I would say a little more generally that the issues of target-setting and accountability reflected in the bill being studied now really do go to the heart of what we've been answering questions about this afternoon. And of course it will ultimately be the prerogative, in the case of the bill, of Parliament, and in terms of organization of the government, by our conventions, of the Prime Minister.
There are certain things that, even before that, we are moving on. Under any scenario, I think there will have to be a connection made between the real work of departments, the geographic circumstances, the nature of their business, the trade-offs that are always inherent in making infrastructure investments as opposed to program investments, and so on. We will have to work those out.
At the back end, the reporting to Parliament, we recognize that the objective analysis that would hold all of us to account, regardless of what the specific targets are and how they are derived, is something that, through the continuous improvement in the departmental performance reports, is a vehicle we recognize right now we have to make better use of.
I fully recognize, speaking to the member through you, Chair, that I have not answered the question fully. We are limited in how far we can go in answering that question.
Philosophically, I guess, I'm not a person who believes in ordering and commanding results. That's an approach that government attempts to do quite often, and quite often it leads to a lot of talk and not a whole lot of action. We could even look at the Kyoto treaty itself as evidence of that. We sign on to something, we say we're going to reduce something by 20%, and we find out we're 35% or 40% over. We're all scratching our heads wondering where the plan was and why nothing got done. We feel that if we make a decree or a declaration, everything should automatically happen.
I think most successful leaders and successful organizations today would be highly critical of that approach. Take Dr. Deming and the people who founded the whole total quality management system and the concepts of continuous improvement. They would say that's not an approach that works. You can't decree targets. You have to manage a system and get those results. It takes things like good systems, good management, teamwork, commitment to a process to get on with things, and so on.
Really, what I'm concerned about today is whether in our departments we have actually.... I know that we had ten years during which we had lots of talk and no action.
Madam Meredith, are we making real and concrete progress in reducing our environmental footprint and the waste and mismanagement that goes on in the departments?
:
I'd like to go back to his point on progress. I think we've made progress. Is it ever enough? No, it's not ever enough. But I think we're positioned to deal with the departments and to engage them really constructively over the next year to 18 months, as I mentioned.
I think we've made good progress in some of the greening of our buildings. In LEED gold, we're leaders. Parks Canada, for example, has a platinum building on Vancouver Island. There are only ten in the world. So you find initiative being taken. We can take stock of that. We can talk to other departments about potential in their buildings to do the same thing.
At Public Works we're committed to an LEED gold standard. That's a very high standard. Actually, just the other day the Jean Canfield building was opened in Charlottetown. I think that gets to the culture point you're talking about, that these buildings, built to that kind of high standard of environmental stewardship, can be an inspiration not only to others in government but also to the employees who work there and the community itself.
So there's never enough progress, perhaps, but there is progress there. We'll look at what has been made, we'll take account of best practices, we'll feed it into the next round of advice to departments and the guidance we give them, and I think we'll end up with a good, solid set of sustainable development strategies for 2009 to 2012.
:
Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Lake, yes, I am, actually. I think this hearing has been a very good hearing to shine a spotlight on a very important issue for this government. The other witnesses at the table certainly are working in an area that is important, and seem to be making progress. Mind you, the devil is in the details, so we'll have to see.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would just add two or three concluding thoughts. I do think we're poised to make a quantum leap forward. I think there's a very great need to have a driver for this greening of government operation. The chairman mentioned that earlier, and I certainly agree. When you think of that, PWGSC, in testimony today, indicated that they've been given the leadership role; if TBS, a very powerful central agency, can join them, that's a pretty potent driver. So we'll see whether that works out.
Clear expectations, I think, are needed, both for the government overall and for individual departments and agencies. As I understand it, there are expectations being developed now. There's a perfect opportunity to communicate those throughout government through the next round of special examinations guidance. So that's a good sign.
Lastly, we really have to know whether these expectations are being met. There must be some kind of public reporting. We've heard today that there is every indication, I think, to do the public reporting, hopefully in a more aggressive and more open way, through the departmental performance reports.
So a lot can be done with existing structures and existing people. I'm just very hopeful that with the support of this committee, that quantum leap will be made.