ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 22, 1998

• 1534

[Translation]

The Chairman (the Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, we have the honour and great pleasure of welcoming the Deputy Minister of the Environment. Mr. Gilmour and all members of the committee decided to extend an invitation to the Deputy Minister, who has a very interesting CV, in order to discuss a number of issues with him.

• 1535

[English]

He is just back from the World Bank, where he served, I believe, three years. Preceding that, he was in a very powerful, intriguing spot—namely, inside that fortress called the Department of Finance. There he offered advice to the Minister of Finance, and therefore Mr. Good is potentially a terrific ally in economic instruments that could serve the environment; even in the removal of perverse subsidies, which increase carbon dioxide emissions; and even further by furthering the cause for the renewable sources of energy, which, as you know—as we all know—are not enjoying yet a level playing field with the non-renewables.

His wealth of experience is augmented by the fact that he was Deputy Minister of the Environment for four years, preceding his appointment as special adviser to the Minister of Finance. We also learn from his CV that he started in the public service in 1973, and that in the period preceding his appointment as deputy minister, he was also deputy secretary to the cabinet in the Privy Council Office in charge of planning.

I ask you, what more can we, the unwashed masses sitting around this table, ask for? We can't. It is with great pleasure, and personal joy as well, to have the opportunity to welcome back to this assignment—and it's not an easy one, as he probably knows better now than we do—Mr. Good.

I give him the floor, and invite you to take advantage of this opportunity to put forward your thoughts on the role of Environment, which he represents, which he has represented so well in the past, and which I'm sure he will continue to represent very well.

Mr. Good, welcome amongst friends. Bienvenue.

Mr. Len Good (Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

I'm very pleased to be here.

[English]

It's been five years since I was Deputy Minister of the Department of the Environment. It's not very often that a deputy minister is asked to go back and do the same job he did before. I'm never quite sure whether it's a reflection of the fact that they think I did it very well or a reflection of the fact that I may have done it very poorly and they're going to give me a second chance.

The world certainly has changed an awful lot in the last five years. I come back to quite a different department, and quite a different world in which it's operating. Although many parts of the job are clearly similar to what they were in the past, and many of the people I'm working with are people I've worked with in the past, the challenges are different, certainly, than they were then, so it's still a significantly different job.

The vice-chairman was asking if I would say a bit about my history. You've covered that fairly thoroughly, but I will be doing the same thing with just a bit more colour, if that's appropriate.

It all began back in Leeds, England, in 1944. I came to Canada when I was 9. I grew up in southern Ontario, Hamilton and St. Catharines. I went to Toronto and did a BA in economics and political science. I spent a couple of years teaching in Prince Edward Island, in 1969-1970, and decided I liked teaching so much I should go back and do a PhD, and do it properly.

• 1540

I did that. I went back to Western, I think in 1970, and did a PhD in industrial organization. I did a thesis on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. I got my thesis done, but as it turned out, didn't end up teaching. I ended up in government. I've spent the last 25 years or so in government in one way or another.

As you said, in the 1970s I was with Treasury Board as an economist/policy type of person, moving on to the Department of Finance in the late 1970s, again in a policy job.

Then 1979-1987 was a very fascinating period. I rose four or five levels in the public service over the years, all in the department of what was then called Energy, Mines and Resources. As you know, 1979 was when oil prices spiked for the second time, and the government of the day got into issues about how to share the rents from higher oil prices within the country; how to deal with exploration issues in the north; and how to deal with Americanization of the oil and gas industry.

That all went together in something called the National Energy Program, which was exciting, controversial...and I'm sure people have many adjectives to describe that program.

It certainly was, for a public servant, a fascinating time. That lasted from 1979, when it went into place, until kind of a day later, when it started coming apart, because oil prices started coming down at the end of 1979. Most of the eighties through 1985 was spent adjusting to oil prices that were tracking down, not going up. Then a different government in 1985 decided to take it apart in a definitive way. We spent a couple of years doing that.

So I went the full cycle of issues having to do with energy.

In 1987, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I went over to the Privy Council Office, which is kind of the inner sanctum of bureaucracies in Ottawa. It's very fascinating, because you get to see the inside of cabinet rooms, how things function and how decisions are made. It was really good being a fly on the wall for a couple of years. You learn a lot about the system. That's what was beneficial for me in doing it.

In 1989, I worked with the Department of the Environment as deputy minister. I worked with three different ministers. That was a very exciting period. By hook or by crook, we managed to get a fairly significant amount of money out of the government of the day and put together what I still think in retrospect was a quite good, comprehensive environmental plan. It actually was not received all that well by anybody, in retrospect, but I think it had some merit. I basically spent four years doing that.

I could talk more about that, as appropriate, when we get to some of the questions.

In 1993 I was asked to go to the Department of Finance as an adviser to the Minister of Finance, which I did for a year, although even the latter part of that year I spent three months at the Privy Council Office once again, on a special project helping them do Privy Council's own program review. I was asked to do that because I was a senior person in government and had been at PCO a couple of years before, so I was the right kind of person to do that job.

Shortly after that, in September 1993, I was not appointed but elected to be Canada's executive director on the board of the World Bank. There are 24 board members who represent the shareholders of the bank and basically approve the loans that come up through the bank, approve policies and do a number of other things that might get touched on parenthetically over the course of the next while.

I say “elected” because at the bank you represent a number of countries. In my case, I represented Canada, obviously, but also Ireland and 11 English-speaking countries in the Caribbean—Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, and all of what are called the OECS countries, the small-island, banana-producing countries.

I did that job for four years, and although I had a wonderful time in Energy and a wonderful time in Environment, I probably learned as much as I've learned anywhere being in that job in Washington, just watching what was happening internally within the bank under a new president, but more importantly, what the bank was doing in conjunction with the IMF in a world situation that's obviously evolved in very dramatic ways over the last couple of years.

• 1545

That was a tremendous learning experience for me, but four years was enough. When the clerk asked me if the Prime Minister appointed me to this job once again I would be happy to do it, I said, obviously, yes. That's how I've ended up here today.

I've been in the job for I guess a little over four weeks now. I'm pleased to be here and to talk to you on the basis of what I've learned in four weeks and what I remember from before.

Thank you.

The Chairman: You have given us a very interesting further insight into what's in your CV, but in doing so you've whetted our appetites. Perhaps you may want to talk about policy directions that you wish to explore in your new role.

Mr. Len Good: On the policy directions for the Department of the Environment in the period ahead, the department's in a situation that I guess is not that different from many other departments around town. In some senses, however, it's a little bit worse off in that in 1993 or 1994—I'm not exactly sure when—the department lost almost half of what constituted the department at that time, which was Parks.

One of the major things we had been pushing as a department up to that point was that the department should be becoming a much more integrated department in the way it looked at and dealt with issues. We started to focus on ecosystems and more integrated ways of using our science to deal with ecosystem problems rather than thinking in bits and pieces. I mean, people see the world that way, and it's a reality.

So the loss of Parks was actually quite a blow to the department, because it came close to——it didn't quite do it—stopping in its tracks the integration of thinking and operation that was going on. So that was a blow.

Then, like all other departments, it suffered in program review, obviously. It has had resources cut back to the point now where it's a significantly smaller department than it was at that time. I would say that as a department, we're now at the point where it had adjusted to program review, I think, in a way that will permit it to go forward. It's still operating as an integrated department in the regions, and I think that's the right thing to do, even without Parks. We still have an integrated department in the regions. Our personnel is still very strong. I think the people are still motivated, and I think we're well situated to go forward on a number of fronts.

It seems to me this committee—and I know, because I've looked at the work you've been doing over the last year or two, certainly—has focused on all the major things that we're involved in: Bill C-32, CEPA, our whole approach to dealing with toxic chemicals, and environmental protection writ large, which is obviously a major theme, a major part of the department. I know you will be focusing on endangered species legislation and the way in which that fits into the way in which Canada and the provinces will work together to deal in a satisfactory manner with endangered species.

The biggest file for sure, however, which will occupy us for years, obviously, is everything to do with climate change. That was a big file before I left and it continues to be a big file now that I'm back. There are large amounts of process associated with the file—federal-provincial relations processes, a lot of players domestically, a lot going on internationally on major processes. Buenos Aires next month is another step along the international path to putting in place the international architecture to deal with climate change. So there's a lot going on in terms of process.

• 1550

As well, in terms of substance we're starting to get there. I think there's a tremendous distance to go in terms of really understanding what the implications of climate change are, and how in fact we will deal with it, how we'll deal with the reduction target in the short term, which is to say over the next half a dozen years, and how we'll deal with adaptation over the next 25 to 50 years. So that's a huge issue.

Of course, we have other things going on in the short run. The minister is going to be making a fairly significant announcement tomorrow, which I believe I can talk about, because I think the announcement has been out that she will be making it. The subject is sulphur and gasoline, the details of which she'll obviously talk about tomorrow.

That's been engaging us for a while, too. There are a number of tracks the department is focused on.

Maybe I'll stop there and see whether people want to pursue anything else, specific things.

The Chairman: All right.

The first one to indicate a wish to ask questions is Madame Kraft Sloan, followed by Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a note for you to let you know that I apologize for being late and that I have to leave very soon. I'm very sorry. I'm sandwiched in between two appointments with ministers. It's one of those days. But I am keenly interested in having a good discussion with you, and I'll follow the transcripts.

An area that I think a lot of Canadians are concerned about is our water in this country. As you know, there was an issue, I guess it was last year, around the export of water from the Great Lakes, and recently there were some preliminary hearings in Sault Ste. Marie looking at this issue. I believe it's the Ontario government that's actually running those hearings.

I'm wondering if Environment Canada has any plans to ban the export of water.

Mr. Len Good: You're right about the initiative in Ontario. I believe there's one also in Newfoundland, which raised the same issue. It's caused some concern. It certainly caused some concern back in the late 1980s in the context of the free trade discussions, too.

I guess it was thought at that time that there was a policy in place that would permit the government to deal with that in a satisfactory manner. It's not entirely clear that this is now the case.

As a result of both those initiatives, yes, there is a review, if you want, not just of our policy with respect to exports but also with respect to freshwater strategy in general. Clearly, given those two issues, the export issue is getting a pride of place. There are discussions under way now with the provinces on the broader strategy and on this particular issue as well.

Obviously one has to be careful. There are various kinds of trade agreements in place domestically and internationally that have to be looked at fairly carefully, and we're doing that, but my sense is that we're moving in the direction of making sure that exports don't take place that would significantly jeopardize any of our ecosystems. Not to jump to the conclusion of discussions that will take place over the next few months, my sense is that obviously we're going to be cautious in terms of the export of fresh water.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There were some meetings, or a meeting, held over the summer, early fall, around the water policy review. I don't have a lot of details, so forgive my vagueness on the question, but is there a paper that people were looking at or is there something in written form as to the status of the review of the water policy?

Mr. Len Good: There may well be. It's not anything I have seen. If there is, I guess I would say that, in some sense, it's a paper that's on the way.

• 1555

As you noted, we are in the process of looking at exactly where we stand from a legal point of view, looking at a range of issues that have to do with fresh water. But focusing on this one primarily, we're in consultations and looking at the legal side of things.

So it's very much at the early stages of a process, which I think is going to last several months, in any event. There's certainly no definitive paper on this issue, but I'm sure there are lots of papers that deal with some of the issues and background material.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are there any deadlines with specific things that have to be produced? How can we know how the process is going?

Mr. Len Good: In our department, my assistant deputy minister, who's managing that process, pays a lot of attention to timelines and critical paths. So if it's of interest, I could perhaps have the department prepare for you our most-likely critical path over the next several months, what the key milestones are, and what it's likely to lead to in terms of products.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That would be terrific.

Mr. Len Good: Sure, I would be delighted.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.)): Thank you.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): It's a pleasure to meet you. As the Chairman said, what more can we ask for. You have all of the qualifications to meet the challenge head-on.

I understand you have already been Deputy Minister of the Environment, although I'm not sure when. How many years ago was that?

Mr. Len Good: I served as Deputy Minister from 1989 to 1993.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I see.

Mr. Len Good: Four years in all.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Back then, the Environment Department's budget was considerably larger than it is today. It has since been slashed. Many positions have been eliminated and there are fewer inspectors responsible for enforcing environmental standards.

At our meeting this morning, a number of representatives from different departments testified before the committee. The Director of the Climate Change Secretariat informed us that the government would not be able to meet the commitments it made at Kyoto. From now until the year 2015 or 2010, we will need to make up a very significant 25% shortfall. I'd like to know your position on this matter, as I'm sure you have one.

Furthermore, following up on what the member who is just about to leave said, hearings are scheduled to be held shortly in Quebec on water. Were you aware of this?

Mr. Len Good: Aware of what?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Of the upcoming hearings on water.

Mr. Len Good: Yes.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd like to hear your opinion on this subject, because we in Quebec feel that water comes under provincial jurisdiction. Where do you stand on the issue? Thank you.

Mr. Len Good: First of all, you are correct in saying that our department's budget is much smaller than in the past, but as I said off the top, back then, our department included Parks Canada. There were probably 5,000 people employed by Parks Canada and this service likely accounted for half of the department's budget. As a result of restructuring, we are now half the size we once were. Moreover, the program review process resulted in cuts of approximately 20% or 30% throughout what remained of the department. Undoubtedly we have fewer resources and fewer employees than in the past. There is a great deal that needs to be done.

Ultimately, the decision rests with government. The federal government is grappling with financial considerations and we need to do our bit to help resolve these problems. Of course we could accomplish more if we had more resources. However, I think we can still get the job done with the resources available to us.

As for the hearings in Quebec on the freshwater issue, some discussions did take place two or three weeks ago and I've been told that they were fairly cordial.

• 1600

Considering that the issue on the table is primarily water exports, I think the federal government is fully entitled to assume a leading role in this area. As I said, the talks that took place were cordial, but the process is only beginning and who knows exactly where we will be two or three months down the road. However, my sense is that things will go smoothly and that we are on the right track.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are you prepared then to recognize that the provinces have jurisdiction over water? Are you prepared to acknowledge that or will you be taking another approach?

Mr. Len Good: I trust that we always recognize provincial jurisdiction. We do not intend to do things any differently here. We are working closely with regional representatives in the province. I discussed the matter last week with my people in Montreal and was told that relations are very cordial indeed.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Surely you realize that the environment is a top priority for Canadians and for Quebeckers. You stated that despite the current shortage of resources and staff, you are still up to the challenge and ready to begin the new millennium fully mindful of the importance that the environment holds for Canadians. I for one am deeply concerned about the shortage of resources.

Mr. Len Good: As I said, we could accomplish more if we had more money, but we must make do with what we have. It's a question of harmonizing our actions with provincial initiatives. The impression I get here is that you are not fully satisfied with the government's and with the department's decision to harmonize its actions with the provinces, but this is one way of sharing the burden of shrinking resources. There are ways that we can manage.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm very pleased to hear you say that. Thank you.

Mr. Len Good: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, Monsieur Charbonneau, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Welcome, Dr. Good.

I want to preface this a little bit by saying I haven't been involved in the environmental “movement”—for lack of a better term—all that long, but it seems to me to be something you could characterize by a constant conflict between long-term environmental policy and short-term economic policy. So I must confess to a little reservation when I read your resumé and see that your education is purely economic. I do take heart, though, in the fact that your experience at the World Bank would have clearly showed you that the global economy doesn't work, that putting your faith in pure economics is folly.

One of the things I've been concerned about is the fight for resources, and how important having the resources are. Because even if we agree on the course of action, we're limited by the extent of those. I think it's important, in terms of a strategy point of view, to try to get people to agree on what the actual problem is. If our minister is at the cabinet table trying to argue climate change on a short-term economic basis, then she's in tough...but if we can get people to agree on what are the actual costs associated with not doing it, then I think we have a better chance of agreeing on solutions.

I'm wondering if there are initiatives or if there is interest, or inertia, at the ministry to explore the idea of fuller cost-accounting models and genuine progress indicators, that kind of thing.

My specific question is that in the future fight for resources, if the government's dealing with an environmental cleanup, is that something you would view as an environmental cost or is that something you would view as an industrial cost that just has been late paid? Because my fear is that if these things are viewed as environmental costs, then we're going undertake them necessarily and appropriately, but we're going to undertake them at the expense of what might have been resources available for the environmental ministry.

• 1605

I'm just wondering if you see that fight on the horizon, and if that is a fight we can win.

Mr. Len Good: You've touched on several things there. The one I guess I'm going to avoid—if I start down that track, I'll end up talking for half an hour—concerns your point about the global economy not working, and economists, and why that is. Having spent four years—

Mr. Joe Jordan: That was kind of tongue-in-cheek. Don't take that too seriously. I spent two years in Ethiopia, so I come from—

Mr. Len Good: But given what's happening in southeast Asia and Russia and various parts of the world, it's certainly the case that there are some questions to be asked, particularly about the roles of international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, and the way policy is done. It's a huge issue, but it's not the main focus here, so I will avoid that at this point.

I think your point is right, though, that there is a tendency for some constituencies in the country, if you want, to focus on short-run economic costs and to play down the long-run environmental gains—or environmental losses, depending on what you do—and for others to do the opposite. We continually strive for the balance between the two to try to keep everybody onside, which is why we have the very extraordinary, almost convoluted, processes we do to bring all the players to the table as often as we do.

On issues like that, I don't really think the focus should be on resources. What we're talking about ultimately is changes in behaviour, changes in the way of doing things, adaptation. Yes, there are costs to building buildings differently, but it doesn't follow that building buildings differently over time is any more expensive than building them the way we do now. It's just building them differently.

People's behaviour changes. People are already acting differently now from how they used to, and we don't think of that as involving a resource cost. It's a mindset.

So I think an awful lot of what will be involved in getting to where we want to go over the next few years shouldn't be thought of in terms of what's the dollar cost of getting there. It's more a matter of education, which is to say understanding the problem, understanding the means available to go from one state to another. I think that's an important part of it.

That's not to say there will not be some winners and some losers. I think people recognize that. That's why we have the debates we do. But as I say, I don't think the focus of a debate on climate change should be a dollar-based debate, primarily.

With respect to the environmental cleanup, I must say, I am exactly where you are—if I understood what you were saying—in that historically, I guess because resources were so abundant and because governments had not thought about problems associated with toxics and contaminated sites and so on, and land was so plentiful and water was so plentiful, it just was not an issue at the forefront of the minds of people or governments. Therefore, they were never, ever built into the costs of a business enterprise, such as a mine, a chemical plant, or whatever. No one ever built into the full costs of that investment the costs of ultimate cleanup and dismantling.

We're stuck in a period of transition now, because in the future, I think, those kinds of costs are being increasingly built into the full costing of an initiative of that kind. Now we're caught in the period in between, where we have the old investments that didn't have those costs built in and the sites are there, and sometimes the ownership is not clear. We're going to have to deal with that. Unlike my previous item, that is just unavoidably a dollar issue, because it takes money to clean up those sites, and it's going to have to be done.

You can bet that there will be long discussions about the allocation of liabilities between owners and provinces and federal government and so on. We'll have to go through that. Hopefully it's a one-time thing. We'll clean up those sites in Canada.

• 1610

With respect to new investments into the future, we'll make sure that dismantling and taking care of end products and by-products that are not wanted at the end of the life of the project are dealt with and that the moneys are there, as part of the project, to deal with them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I absolutely agree with you when you talk about the need for fundamental change in values and subsequent change in behaviours. If you think back to the issue of drinking and driving, no community was not touched by accidents and things, and the horror of it. Having to see that, grassroots values were changed on that issue. Smoking in public is another one.

The problem I think we face here is that if we're not publicly reporting on the downside, if we're not presenting the state of the nation in a forum that is open and honest about the environmental costs being incurred, I don't think we are going to get people to the point where they feel it's an important issue. I think most people think it's important, but I think most people are also under the impression that things aren't too bad, that this system is working fairly well. They're prepared to do a little, but not if it's going to hit them in the wallet.

Do you see a role for the ministry in trying to present the picture in a way that contributes to that fundamental shift in values?

Mr. Len Good: Absolutely. If one was going through what are the objectives of the department, I would say it's providing information, giving people a sense of what's going on over time in terms of the trends, whether it's water or air, giving them a sense of the long-run costs of those trends, giving them a sense of how one can respond to them. Everything to do with public education is absolutely critical for us.

The specific example we're looking at right now is climate change. For people who have been involved in the file for a long time, we've seen the science get stronger and stronger. We're now at the point where not only is the science about as close to unambiguous as you're going to get but, as well, many scientists are saying that we're already seeing the effects. You're no longer hearing with any frequency, as you used to do, the dissenting voices about, oh, we're not sure.

Maybe we're hearing the odd one—I don't know—but as a general rule, I think, the number of voices making that point gets smaller and smaller in terms of people who follow it closely.

I don't think it has really hit home all that much with the average Canadian, though, because it's easy to say, “Oh, boy, it's going to be warmer”, and dismiss the whole thing as a joke. But then you start to see some of the manifestations, whether it be floods or whatever it may be. You start to see the signs. You don't want to get into those situations where you say, “Oh, my gosh, why didn't we start sometime earlier to deal with this?”

For a government to do, and to promote, some of the significant things that are going to have to be done, clearly they won't be able to do that if the public isn't onside, and the public is not going to be onside until they understand.

We have a major communications effort to undertake in the years ahead so that you in Parliament can take decisions, pass laws, or do whatever is required, to make sure that we get to where we have to be. I know you're going to feel a lot better doing that if you feel that your constituents really understand the issue. And it's not an easy issue to understand.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): It's my turn to welcome you as you take up your new duties. You should feel right at home since you served as Deputy Minister just under 10 years ago at a time when euphoria and enthusiasm about environmental issues were in plentiful supply.

The year was 1989. The Brundtland Report which dealt with sustainable development had just been released. Everyone was scrambling to get on the environment bandwagon. I believe you were involved back then in drafting the Green Plan. Hopes were riding very high at the time. Of course, we know that other decisions were subsequently made and the Green Plan was scaled down to more modest proportions.

• 1615

Now, several years later, the climate within the Environment Department has changed, as you stated earlier. There have been substantial cuts and revisions. Judging from what this committee has heard, your department was dealt a harsher blow then most other departments. The cuts you suffered were in the order of 40 per cent.

Perhaps you've have the opportunity to read our report on environmental legislation enforcement and consider the opinion of our committee regarding the lack of resources available to the department to fully carry out its mandate in the area of legislative enforcement. You stated earlier that it was possible to get the job done with existing resources. After listening to the witnesses who have appeared before us and to senior Environment Department officials, the general consensus appears to be that there is a serious shortage of resources within your department. In any case, the arguments presented to us were sufficiently convincing for us to reach this conclusion. You seem quite optimistic that you can get the job done with the resources you presently have.

Certainly it is our hope that the department can acquire more resources. From coast to coast, there are only about 60 people responsible for regulatory and legislative enforcement actions. According to the testimony we heard, these individuals can only focus on a small portion of the laws and regulations for which they have responsibility. They have no other choice but to establish very selective priorities. We have come to the conclusion that existing requirements should be taken seriously and that more resources should be made available to the Environment Department.

However, this question has already been raised and you appear to be quite satisfied with the resources currently available to you. Would you care to comment further at this time?

Mr. Len Good: It's not a question of being satisfied or not, but rather a question of accepting that we don't really have any choice in the matter. We're not the ones who decide how resources are to be allocated.

As I said, if we had more to work with, we could do more. However, I still maintain that we can get the job done with the resources we now have. We intend to work more closely with the provinces and to share responsibilities.

In order to enforce next spring the provisions of the new environment legislation and undoubtedly those of the new endangered species legislation as well, more substantial resources may be required. If that is the case, we will certainly request additional resources.

I've talked with officials from my department and they've told me that they are now operating more efficiently and paying closer attention to their annual work plans. Therefore, we have taken some steps to increase our efficiency. It hasn't been easy and I can't say that I'm completely satisfied with the situation. However, as I said, we are coping.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a second question for you, one that will, I hope, help me to understand how you view the Environment Department.

Some of the witnesses and groups that have come before us argue that the Environment Department should be an uncompromising, staunch defender of the environment, just as Health Canada defends health issues, the Agriculture Department serves as an advocate for farmers and the agricultural industry and the Department of Industry initiates action in business and industry issues. The Environment Department, they say, should adopt an ecological approach, that is it should side with environmental groups and experts in this field and become an advocate for the cause within government.

• 1620

Other witnesses have told us that the Environment Department should be attuned to the concerns of industry, municipalities, aboriginal groups, environmentalists and researchers and work to promote sustainable development initiatives that are acceptable to all parties. Which of these two approaches should the Environment Department take or should it come up with a third option?

Mr. Len Good: I don't know if it's wise of me to admit this, but I'm one of those who is seeking a balanced approach. There is no advantage to adopting extreme positions. These do nothing to further environmental causes. We must not, of course, abandon environmental principles which, as our mandate says, we have an obligation to defend.

We have to realize that sustainable development is the important issue and that everyone must be involved in the decision- making process. Everyone must move forward together. All viewpoints must be taken into account since most people claim to be concerned about environmental protection. We wouldn't be on the right track if we decided to ignore the opinions of others. In some respects, we want to do as you do, that is take into consideration a range of views.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You talked about striking a balance and making compromises. Some people prefer not to use the word "compromise" or "trade-off", because when we compromise between environmental and economic issues, what's left? Does that mean we are prepared to settle for some, rather than a lot of, fish in the water? What trade-offs are we prepared to make in terms of the environment, air quality and so forth?

Is it in fact the responsibility of the Environment Department to achieve this balance, or rather isn't it the responsibility of the government which hears the views of industry, the environment, health, fisheries and oceans and so forth? It is aware of its financial constraints, of its ability to impose taxes, of the ability of the public to evolve, accept change and participate in this process. In light of these constraints, including the international context, who is responsible for striking this balance, the Environment Department, or the government?

Mr. Len Good: Let me say first of all that I don't know if any compromises or trade-offs are truly possible. Often, we trade short-term costs against long-term benefits. Let's consider this. I don't think we should start from the position that there has to be a trade-off. If we accept the basic sustainable development premise, then we accept that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. In my view, that's a sound premise.

As for your second question, it's true that decisions are made by a group of ministers, by the government as a whole and by Parliament after all viewpoints have been taken into consideration.

• 1625

Moreover, I believe the Environment Department must defend environmental issues and, at the same time, be receptive to the views of other stakeholders. It will be in a better position to further environmental protection causes if from time to time it shows itself willing to listen to other points of view. This approach guarantees success.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Mr. Herron, then the chair.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you're doing a progressively wonderful job today.

I'm very much heartened by your return to the Department of the Environment, speaking for my former boss—in a non-partisan fashion, because he's a Liberal now—in that regard. You actually had a very interesting legacy. The National Packaging Protocol was done around your time, and acid rain came in afterwards. The Green Plan as well was done during your era, as was Biodiversity and Climate Change in Rio, and implementation of CEPA '88, which we're reviewing right at the moment. So we're still working on some of the good things that were done in the department during your time.

One of the things that took up a fair amount of time back in the spring was Mr. Emmett's report with respect to the implementation gap, which we see essentially en masse with respect to the Department of the Environment. Some of that can be allocated to resources and some of that can be allocated to leadership.

My question is related to two points that Mr. Emmett raised. In particular was that of a very scary issue around contaminated sites. We haven't been able to ascertain how many of those sites are actually identified as being dangerous to human health.

It's my understanding that the Department of the Environment is no longer, or doesn't really have the budget to be, in the—quote unquote—“cleanup business” of contaminated sites.

So my question is on that particular issue of contaminated sites, and dealing with the stockpiles of PCBs and the plan in terms of dealing with those respective stockpiles, given the problems we have, obviously at Swan Hills, and the strategy in terms of how we're going to handle the PCB destruction.

Mr. Len Good: Let me say that I'm actually not au courant with exactly how we're going to proceed on the PCB file. I was surprised and disappointed to hear that there have been some problems at Swan Hills. I'm not exactly sure what happened to the portable incinerator program that we had a few years ago. I know there have been some decisions with respect to the import and export of PCBs for destruction that come into the case. With respect to PCBs in particular, I can't be very definitive.

With respect more generally to contaminated sites, it is a major issue. We do know enough to know that a significant number of sites around the country need to be cleaned up. In fact, what we're doing as a department right now is preparing a document for the minister's consideration at some point over the next few months that will actually constitute a framework within which the government certainly can approach looking at sites, some of which are federal and some of which are not entirely federal.

The plan is to have a framework that takes account as much as it can of original ownership and current responsibility and liabilities. Sometimes these questions have two major issues: one, the technology of the cleanup, and two, the financing of the cleanup.

• 1630

In some cases of contaminated sites, such as the Sydney tar ponds, the technology is obviously far from obvious. We'll spend a significant amount of time just finding the right way to deal definitively with the Sydney tar ponds.

Other contaminated sites are much more straightforward in terms of what's required by way of technology, and the issue is simply the money to do it. In that sense, they're straightforward, and therefore you get down to how we're going to put the pot of money together to get the job done.

As I say, we're preparing a document that will try to provide the framework within which to approach dealing with a large number of contaminated sites in Canada, and I think that's a critical first step. As you're pointing out, the second step will be the funding, but to be candid, I don't think it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment to fund the cleanup of a thousand contaminated sites across Canada. I think our job is to take a leadership role in ensuring that sites get identified, that the technologies, where known, are identified, and that we go through whatever processes are required to allocate and then generate the funding to clean them up.

At some point, therefore, the cleanup of a particular contaminated site is likely to get handed over to someone else to finish off, and our job is to make sure it gets started.

In that sense, I don't mind, as a department with limited resources, going down the track of looking at what is clearly a very expensive problem. It's one we have to get to at some point. The sites won't go away.

So we have to address this, and we will.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

Dr. Good, there was a presentation made by Treasury Board officials about the policy for writing regulations. Interestingly enough, they had included as an appendix and sort of a guiding principle the international trade agreements we've signed.

It did strike many of the committee members as odd that they wouldn't also include as an appendix the other agreements we have signed, be they sustainable development agreements or commitments made in Beijing on gender equality, paying attention to things we've signed or undertaken in other circles, be it land mines or issues related to children.

Is it your understanding that this is a policy anyway, or is there some work that needs to be done at Treasury Board to enhance their definition of their obligations under our international agreements?

Mr. Len Good: I hesitate only because the answer to this could get me into some difficulty.

I'm not familiar with the documents you're referring to, so I can only comment in a very general way.

My general comment would be that clearly the international trade agreements to which we have become formal parties are incredibly detailed agreements, with many chapters, many appendices, long statements of what constitutes violations, long statements of the implications of failure to comply, and in some cases—some examples have come up in the last few months—potentially even some significant financial implications of failure to comply.

Certainly in terms of presentation and discussion of these kinds of issues I'm not surprised that there would appear to be maybe undue focus on those kinds of agreements, but clearly, no, our other international agreements, which are less well known and perhaps don't have in them the kinds of liabilities associated with non-compliance, are nevertheless important.

• 1635

We have agreements on migratory birds with the U.S., and CITES, and many other kinds of international agreements, whether it's the Montreal Protocol or whatever it may be. The government, I think, takes those very seriously, and in producing regulations and doing what we do in our business, we clearly do take those into account.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, I would hope there is some possibility of enhancing that process and focusing people. I know, for instance, that we've committed in Beijing to making sure that there was gender analysis of any policies and of any initiatives that went to the cabinet table, but I'm not sure that enough effort is done in that area, or that enough respect for those commitments is given.

I would hope that as Deputy Minister of the Environment, whether or not it is part of the process now or whether we can change the process, or whether there's some mechanism by which we vet any initiative according to the agreements we've signed internationally vis-à-vis the environment, there's something you can do to enhance people's understanding and the outcomes, basically, of the things we do.

This morning we talked about some of the disincentives inherent in the tax system, whether it be your parking space at the office not being a taxable benefit but your commuter pass for the transit system being a taxable benefit. We need to get some fairer systems there that would advance our goals vis-à-vis Kyoto or other agreements and hopefully advance goals we have as a nation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): If you will permit me, the chair has a few comments or questions. Then we'll go to a very short second round.

Mr. Good, when you were in that chair a number of years ago, I think the budget, at least when this administration started, was about $750 million a year, That has dropped to around $500 million. And yet with climate change and a number of initiatives, you're expected, in some ways, to do more with less.

I'd be most interested to hear whether the priorities that are within the department now are the priorities as you see them. If you see some changes, which areas would you focus on that we aren't focusing on now?

Mr. Len Good: You know, when one comes back to a job, one spends a certain amount of time being driven by what is going on, and to be candid, that's where I am right now. Having said that, much of what's going on was either going on or about to be going on when I left the job. As I said, it's clear that climate change is just the dominant file, and it's the dominant file for all the right reasons.

The whole question of environmental protection, which tends to get captured in law under our Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which you're looking at...a critical piece of legislation. Again, I think that fundamentally is a priority, and very much on the right track.

Endangered species is going on. I think that's obvious.

Below those, you see some important things going on that are relatively new over the last five or six years, and that I think will be increasingly a priority for the department. I alluded, when I was talking about integration in my initial comments, to our whole focus on an ecosystem approach to dealing with the environment in Canada.

A decade ago, apart from, I would say, the Great Lakes, which has been an ecosystem of some concern for obviously a couple of decades, I don't believe as a department we have focused very much on Canada's major ecosystems. Since then, we've changed our approach.

We're looking comprehensively, for example, at the Fraser River and Georgia Basin on the west coast. We have Atlantic Canada's ACAP, a program that deals with the Atlantic ocean hot spots as ecosystems. We're looking at the north in a different way. We're looking at river systems in northern Alberta as ecosystems.

• 1640

It's fundamental, because that's the way the country works, and that's the way the environment works, in terms of ecosystems.

We've changed the way our department works to try to accommodate that. We've increasingly integrated the science so that now we have our wildlife scientists working with our environmental protection scientists working with our toxicologists working with our people in AES, who are doing climate and hydrology research.

So one of the priorities, I think, has been, and will be even into the future, to ensure that we integrate our resources in our thinking so that we can deal in an integrated way with the environment on the ground, as it is. That's a particularly important, longer-term priority for me.

At this point, I can't see any obvious areas in which I would personally want to redirect the department. I'm sure some will emerge in the months ahead, but my guess is they would tend to be marginal. I think the main issues have been identified, and we're going to go down all those tracks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

A very brief second round. Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Deputy Minister, you stated earlier that you would like to find a way to balance the two visions of sustainable development. You also stated that you want to be an advocate for the environment. However, in order to defend environmental causes, you need adequate resources. What are your feelings about the current situation and the growing involvement of the Department of Natural Resources in climate change and of other departments in environmental matters?

Mr. Len Good: As I indicated earlier, the key component of our mandate is to change the behaviour of others, including industry, and in some cases, the behaviour of other departments. My sense is that their way of doing things is really changing. Fifteen years ago, when I worked at Natural Resources, the perspective was totally different from what we see today. Just recently, we visited Halifax and discussed climate change problems over a period of two days.

I don't know whether you're aware of this or not, but recently it was reported in the news that the Alberta Energy Department had done an about-face on the issue of climate change and was now supporting our initiatives in this area. This is one example of the changes that we are seeing everywhere. We believe that we must work together, try to understand the problems we face, set about resolving these problems together and work as a team to move forward. I'm confident that we are on the right track.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Good, thank you very much for appearing before the committee. I'm sure we'll be seeing each other on various occasions. This was a good introductory session for all of us, so much appreciated.

Mr. Len Good: Thank you very much. I enjoyed it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Colleagues, don't run off. Mr. Jordan has something very briefly to bring forward.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm new on the committee, so I'm asking this...and certainly the clerk can provide me with some details.

October 27 is our biodiversity session. There's a group in my riding that has inherited a collection of moths from a university professor. To make a short story shorter, they're opening a biodiversity museum. We've been working for that with the Canadian Biodiversity Centre.

I'm just wondering, if we're going to have a very general discussion on this issue, if we would consider allowing the executive coordinator of that institute to be part of that discussion. They're located here in Ottawa.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): I don't know anything about them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Maybe the clerk could check to see if it's appropriate.

My experience with them has been very good. If it's just a general discussion—because I think it's a very important issue—they're just another group that's involved in it, and they may bring another perspective.

I don't know what the procedure is for that. It's kind of an informal session anyway, I thought.

• 1645

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): It's up to the committee.

Perhaps you could bring us a little more information, or the clerk could, so that we could—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Except it's Tuesday.

I could work with the clerk. She's willing to come, and she knows the date and time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, so this is a bit of a set-up.

Mr. Joe Jordan: She was at our session today.

So if the clerk—and I trust the clerk's view—feels that this is an appropriate witness, would that be fair enough?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.