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, May 13, 1999

• 0911

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we now resume our study of the progress made toward the implementation of federal environmental stewardship.

[English]

We're dealing here with an interesting chapter on stewardship by the Auditor General and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

We would very like much to hear from you.

Mr. Emmett, would you like to lead into the subject matter?

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner, Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

With me from my office is Wayne Cluskey, the principal in charge of the preparation of both the original stewardship chapter, which was tabled in May 1996, and the recent follow-up audit, which was tabled in December 1998.

Environmental stewardship, in our view, is an important stepping stone towards sustainable development. The concept of environmental stewardship was originally called the “greening of government”. It was first introduced in the 1990 Green Plan, and it was then codified in the 1992 Code of Environmental Stewardship.

As the single largest business and employer in Canada, the federal government has a big impact on the environment—both directly, through its operations, and indirectly, through discharging its policy responsibilities. Through the Code of Environmental Stewardship, federal departments and agencies were expected to lead by example by integrating environmental considerations into all aspects of their operations. The code did not apply to crown corporations.

[Translation]

Following the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act, 21 departments and three agencies were required to prepare sustainable development strategies. I am pleased to report that four other agencies did so voluntarily and have already benefited or will benefit from a detailed review by my Office.

[English]

That statement might strike some of my colleagues as sounding a bit unusual—“I'm from the commissioner, and I'm here to help you”—but we really feel that one of the benefits of preparing a plan is to have an outside perspective on it, to have an auditor who's capable of telling you whether you're on track and how you're comparing with best practices elsewhere.

[Translation]

However, 28 agencies with more than 100 full-time equivalents did not produce a sustainable development strategy and they continue to operate outside of this process. In effect, a “two- track” approach to environmental stewardship has been created.

• 0915

[English]

Interviews conducted as part of the 1998 follow-up audit indicated that in two large agencies not producing a sustainable development strategy, there was a significant risk that the environmental stewardship initiative had lost momentum and direction. Environment Canada is not supporting the Code of Environmental Stewardship in these agencies, and there appears to be little senior management support and commitment for stewardship activities within the agencies themselves.

Environment Canada agrees that there is a gap between those agencies required to submit sustainable development strategies under amendments to the Auditor General Act and those where it does not apply, and it agrees that it has an important role to play.

[Translation]

However, Mr. Chairman, the question of whether or not the Code of Environmental Stewardship is still in effect and whether it continues to apply to those agencies not required to produce a sustainable development strategy is still open.

Agencies not producing a sustainable development strategy form a significant part of the federal government. For example, those agencies with more than 100 full-time equivalents alone account for 8 per cent of the total government's work force - about 24,000 people.

[English]

In addition, federal crown corporations continue to be excluded from both the Code of Environmental Stewardship, if it is still in effect, and the amendments to the Auditor General Act requiring the tabling of sustainable development strategies in the House. It is not clear how the federal government plans to encourage crown corporations to adopt good environmental practices.

Given the present situation with respect to the majority of agencies and crowns, there is a risk that the federal government will not achieve its original objective of government-wide greening, as was its original intention under the 1990 Green Plan.

My office is committed to encouraging all federal organizations that are not required to develop a sustainable development strategy to in fact do so. It's a good idea for them, and it's a good idea for the environment. We encourage them to do so or to report on sustainable development issues using other means.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Emmett. That was very helpful.

Would you mind revealing the names of the two large agencies to which you referred under item 6?

Mr. Brian Emmett: When we looked in 1998....

Statistics Canada and the National Research Council are the two agencies we're referring to.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Brian Emmett: That's in our 1998 follow-up.

The Chairman: All right.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Ms. Smith.

[English]

Ms. Norine Smith (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today to highlight the progress made by Environment Canada in greening its own operations as well as promoting sustainable development across government.

I'm here today with officials from the department, who are available to respond to questions in their respective—

The Chairman: Do you have a text?

Ms. Norine Smith: My statement will be distributed to the committee. The translation is just being finalized. It should be here before the session is—

The Chairman: How long have you known about this meeting?

Ms. Norine Smith: Since early this week.

We have the statement in English. The French is just being translated.

The Chairman: The understanding is that perhaps not you but your department was notified two weeks ago.

Ms. Norine Smith: Well, as I say, Mr. Chairman, we have the statement in English, and it will be here very shortly in French.

The Chairman: Then we'll wait for the statement to arrive. When it arrives, you're welcome to read it or elaborate on it.

We'll go on to Natural Resources Canada.

Mr. Arseneault.

• 0920

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Arseneault (Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Real Property, Environment and Security Branch, Natural Resources Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I am going to cover the four key components of our internal NRCan environmental program. My group has been providing the corporate leadership and support in developing and implementing this program.

The four components are: departmental environmental policy; environmental action plan, or the greening of NRCan operations; key environmental management tools in use at NRCan; and NRCan environmental performance.

Let's move on to the first one, departmental environmental policy. As you know, policies are important. They give signals from senior management about the environmental performance the department is supposed to achieve. They give clear roles and responsibilities to managers, to corporate leaders, and to staff.

Back in the 1970s, a policy decision, I guess, was made in the department to create the Office of Environmental Affairs, or OEA, to help what was then EMR, or Energy, Mines and Resources, apply the EARP guidelines order and to deal with such emerging issues as PCBs.

In 1991 the executive committee of the department approved the EMR environmental review, a compliance auditing policy and program that gave us resources to implement this program.

From 1992 to 1996, thirty environmental compliance audits were conducted by my office in departmental installations across the country. Another round of audits started in 1998.

In 1995 the executive committee approved the NRCan environmental protection policy and the NRCan environmental assessment policy. One was dealing with environmental stewardship and CEPA, and the other one was dealing with CEAA and the cabinet guidelines on strategic environmental assessment.

In 1996 the NRCan environmental assessment evaluation program was instituted to verify compliance and quality of EAs conducted at NRCan.

So we had two auditing programs, one for facilities and one for organizational units to look at environmental assessment.

Currently we are finalizing a new departmental environmental policy that combines elements of the previous two. The idea behind this is that we found having two policies was a little bit confusing to staff, and by having only one combined policy, it would be easier to communicate with staff.

[Translation]

The second point I wanted to talk to you about is our Environmental Action Plan entitled “Greening of NRCan Operations”. NRCan launched its first action plan on environmental stewardship in 1992. Prior to 1993, our department had been split under two separate departments: Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, and Forestry Canada, which had formulated action plans to be implemented over three years. The two action plans have since been integrated into a single plan.

In 1995, the “Greening of NRCan Operations - Sustainable Development in Action” plan was launched. This plan was a logical follow-up to our first plan and subsequently become the basis from which was developed Chapter 4 of the NRCan sustainable development strategy entitled “Putting Our House in Order”.

In 1998, the Deputy Minister asked that we start working on an action plan to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from departmental assets and operations. The plan should be ready by the end of 1999-2000.

The third point I wanted to review quickly with you this morning

[English]

is with regard to the environmental management tools at NRCan. I've listed a series of tools here. There are more than these, but I think these are the key ones.

A key tool for the integration of sustainable development into our work at NRCan is the application of the environmental assessment process pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the 1990 cabinet directive.

Since 1995 environmental training has been offered internally in the department on CEAA and CEPA.

As well, since 1995 we have made available an NRCan environmental assessment manual. As quickly as the act was enacted, we had a manual ready for our staff. We were providing training on how to apply this new piece of legislation in NRCan.

The NRCan environmental protection guide, developed in 1998, will shortly be officially released to staff on the departmental Intranet. As well, we've just recently developed a self-learning computer-based application on environmental assessment, which also will be launched shortly on the departmental Intranet.

• 0925

The last element I want to present to you this morning concerns

[Translation]

is NRCan's environmental performance.

NRCan, in accordance with the environmental stewardship initiative, has been producing environmental stewardship progress reports on a regular basis, that is in 1993, 1995 and 1997. The department is presently working on its next report which will be released in 1999.

NRCan is working on improving its internal environmental performance measurements. To this end, NRCan is a member of the Performance Measurements for Sustainable Government Operations Committee co-chaired by the Office of the Commissioner.

NRCan shares best pratices and lessons learned with other departments at interdepartmental from such as the Federal Committee on Environmental Management Systems (FCEMS).

That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arsenault.

Ms. Shuttleworth.

[English]

Ms. Jaye Shuttleworth (Director, Environmental Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is pleased to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is committed to greening its operations in Canada and abroad. The department has always applied the Code of Environmental Stewardship in both Canada and at our missions abroad.

In 1995 the department produced an environmental management plan that outlined a program for environmental management of physical operations and how the department would conduct environmental assessments of projects and new policy and program initiatives. In addition, annual reports were produced to summarize progress toward goals identified in the environmental management plan.

As required by the Auditor General Act, the department tabled its first sustainable development strategy in Parliament in December 1997. The strategy sets out the department's action plan to achieve its sustainable development objectives through to the year 2000.

The four key sustainable development objectives are: economic growth and prosperity; building peace and security; Canadian values and culture; and greening the department's operations. Together, these four objectives address the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental considerations.

The fourth objective of the department's sustainable development strategy deals with greening operations. Under that objective, the department is committed to delivering on 16 actions that fall under four broad issues. These actions range from establishing a sustainable development task force to implementing an environmental management system to developing appropriate and necessary training programs for departmental staff.

As part of its continued commitment to greening government operations, the department has been an active member of the Federal Committee on Environmental Management Systems since its inception, as well as many of the other working groups that fall under the FCEMS, such as the committee on performance measurement for sustainable government operations, and the environmental awareness and training working group.

The department has undertaken numerous initiatives to further the greening of its operations. At the heart of these initiatives is the commitment within Agenda 2000 to put in place an environmental management system by the end of 2000. Towards this end, the department has already established a senior environmental management system committee and working groups for procurement, fleet management, and land use management.

We have also published a mission checklist for greening operations that provides guidance to missions on how to apply best practices given local facilities and conditions.

As well, guidance has been provided to all staff on a variety of environmental management issues, such as green procurement and the greening of conferences and large meetings.

In addition, the department has developed training modules on various aspects of environmental management to ensure that all employees have an opportunity to understand them and to further develop a knowledge base in the area.

The first module, which provides an introduction to the concept of sustainable development, has been completed and tested on a pilot project basis. Other modules are currently being developed.

All will be available through the department's Intranet site and will possibly be posted to the Internet site to benefit other interested parties.

Another tool the department has made available to its employees and other stakeholders is the department's sustainable development website. This site consists of various sources of information, such as the department's sustainable development strategy and biannual progress reports. It also provides information on a wide array of environmental management issues, such as project environmental assessment and “working green” at missions.

• 0930

Last but not least, we have implemented an environmental management database to track and document progress on the greening of operations at missions abroad and at headquarters. This system has been mounted on the sustainable development website and is accessible to all missions abroad via a password. Although it is in the early stages of implementation, it is proving to be a successful initiative. Eventually, the department will be able to produce roll-up reports for the department as a whole.

Given all of these initiatives and the department's active participation in interdepartmental committees and working groups dealing with the greening of operations, I believe it is evident that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade fully supports the federal government's commitment to the greening of government operations and that we consider it an important component of our sustainable development strategy.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Please proceed, Mr. Goulet.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Goulet (Assistant Chief Statistician, Communications and Operations, Statistics Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today and to answer your questions.

[Translation]

We have handed out copies of our brief presentation in both official languages. I won't bother to repeat all of the figures, but I would like to review some of the highlights with you.

With respect to environmental stewardship, Statistics Canada seeks to integrate environmental concerns with operational, financial, safety, health, economic development and other relevant concerns in decision-making.

Statistics Canada continues to be committed to the principles outlined in the Federal Code of Environmental Stewardship in its daily operations. Several concrete actions towards achieving these goals have been undertaken and further action is being considered.

[English]

It is worth noting, under the first point, that Statistics Canada has reduced its overall waste by 23% since 1992.

[Translation]

Obviously, paper is the product that our organization uses the most and it accounts for the bulk of our waste material. We have managed a significant reduction of 35 per cent of paper in the waste stream.

[English]

Concerning the respective legislation on the environment, Statistics Canada incorporates environmental legislation from all levels of government into its administrative operations—for example, the conversion of all air-conditioning units to remove ozone-depleting substances from our system.

To improve the level of awareness throughout the public service and among our employees, Statistics Canada has introduced a certain number of activities. We currently sponsor an environmental exposition each year, where green purchasing practices are highlighted. We regularly publish articles in a departmental newspaper. We publish the EnviroNews bulletin four times a year to make sure all our employees are aware of initiatives and to promote the greening of our operations.

[Translation]

Statistics Canada has applied environmentally responsible waste management practices which have resulted in the virtual elimination of all toxic waste from our waste stream.

• 0935

We have worked to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into government purchasing policies and practices. Our contracts require suppliers to recycle their packaging. Green products are identified in the National Master Standing Offer contractor's catalogue.

[English]

Seeking out cost-effective ways to reduce the input of raw materials, Statistics Canada has made some significant inroads in reducing its consumption of paper. I want to quote a number here that is very significant for our organization: We have reduced our consumption of paper by 64% overall. That is very significant for an organization like Statistics Canada.

Finally, on the management and disposition of lands in a manner that is ecologically significant, it doesn't really apply to Statistics Canada, because we don't have any.

This is a brief overview of all our activity in this regard.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goulet.

Ms. Smith, are you ready to make your presentation now?

Ms. Norine Smith: Yes, I am.

[English]

Despite the lateness of our translation, we are nonetheless pleased to be here before the committee.

I have with me some colleagues from the department who have particular areas of expertise. I'd like to briefly introduce them.

Jean Bilodeau is the director general of administration and is responsible for the greening of Environment Canada. He also is working internationally and could tell the committee about the international leadership Environment Canada is providing in this area.

Mary Komarynsky is the director general of the national programs. She is responsible for some of our stewardship outreach activities.

She is accompanied by Ned Lynch, who is also closely involved in these activities.

Finally, Craig Ferguson is the director of strategic planning and policy co-ordination. He is our focal point within Environment Canada for sustainability initiatives and activities from the policy perspective.

As for me, someone who is relatively new to the world of sustainable development, I'm finding there are many challenges for the federal government in terms of integrating sustainable development principles into daily policy and program development functions and operations.

That's not to say we're not making progress; far from it. We are making changes in how we operate, and we continue to build capacity for further change.

I'd like to highlight some of the initiatives we've undertaken in this respect. These initiatives are outlined in the statement that's now been shared with the committee members.

Let me begin by saying that although today's hearing is focused on the greening operations side of the sustainable development coin, there are numerous activities underway to better incorporate the practice of sustainable development into the federal government's policy and program options and decision-making processes.

I'm going to begin with the side of greening operations.

The greening of government operations is a critical facet of promoting and practising sustainable development within the federal government. When one speaks of greening operations, it's a very tangible area to describe activities and to demonstrate progress. For example, the diversion of waste and the reduction of fleets are measurable accomplishments.

The Office of Federal Environmental Stewardship was first created in 1990 and recognized the need to build capacity within the federal family for greening operations. The office did help to build that capacity during its seven years of existence.

• 0940

In 1992 the Code of Environmental Stewardship was released. It was a voluntary code by nature, and its function was to promote greening operations across government.

In 1995 the government required departments to prepare and implement sustainable development strategies. Greening operations were, and still are, an important component of those strategies.

Throughout the seven years of existence of the Office of Federal Environmental Stewardship, Environment Canada played a leadership role in terms of building capacity across the federal government for greening operations and for creating networks to promote best practices. In this respect, the office organized workshops aimed at sharing greening operations tools and knowledge.

In 1995 the Federal Committee on Environmental Management Systems was created. It was created 18 months prior to the sunsetting of the Office for Environmental Stewardship. This was a deliberate attempt to ensure that an effective mechanism would be put in place in order to continue greening operations efforts across the government. It's co-chaired by Environment Canada and NRCan, and is a principal forum for developing and implementing management approaches to the greening of operations.

Through interdepartmental cooperation and communications, the federal committee focuses on implementing best practices and developing cost-effective solutions to common environmental challenges within the federal family.

Environment Canada is closely involved in many of the projects being pursued under the leadership of the Federal Committee on Environmental Management Systems. Other departments are also closely involved.

Examples of such initiatives are listed in the statement we shared with the committee. They include the following: development of performance measures for sustainable government operations, which has been led by PWGSC and the commissioner's office; the contaminated sites working group, which is led by DND and Environment Canada; and a working group on management of hazardous waste at federal facilities, which is led by Environment Canada.

Environment Canada's environmental management strategy is an essential element of its sustainable development strategy. The environmental management strategy, or EMS, is based on the model outlined in ISO 14004. It consists of a number of components that enable the department to monitor and continuously improve its environmental performance, thereby reducing the impact of its operations on the environment.

Environment Canada's EMS is planned around environmental issues, or around “aspects”, which provide for a systematic approach to planning, prioritizing, taking action, and evaluating results. Aspects are defined as priority environmental impact risk areas—for example, leakage from underground storage tanks or priority opportunity areas for greening operations. An example would be improving energy efficiency in buildings.

For the past two years, sites that have the potential for becoming contaminated have been a priority focus of Environment Canada's EMS. We formed a working group to inventory all facilities presenting contamination risks and to identify the most effective means to address these risks. Of the 7,400 locations operated by Environment Canada across Canada, only 16 are known to be contaminated. A three-year management program is in place and will ensure completion of this effort.

We reviewed the implementation of the EMS last fall, and results showed that EMS followed a rigorous approach. Progress is being made in a logical and planned manner. Our EMS reflects ISO 14004. It has now been fully integrated into our departmental operations in an effort to build a stable and long-standing system of environmental accountability.

Environment Canada continues to play an active role in advocating green practices internationally. For example, we chair the OECD's greening government committee, and participated in the first UNEP pilot workshop on the application of EMS in urban centres.

We are developing an urban decision-makers' website tool to support a commitment made at the 1997 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting. The tool is being designed to increase the capacity of decision-makers to develop cities in a sustainable manner, based on EMS principles.

• 0945

Environment Canada is also leading efforts to better promote sustainable development within the federal family. We are working closely with other federal departments to ensure our efforts are effectively coordinated.

In this respect, we are on the cusp of defining new policy research areas, identifying implementation gaps so we can address them collectively, and examining means of bringing more coherence, both in policy and in practice, to sustainable development at the federal level.

The sustainable development coordinating committee is one mechanism that will help us to do that at the most senior level. It is a DM-level committee focused on managing cost-cutting sustainable development issues. This committee underwent a bit of a hiatus, but has recently been relaunched and promises to provide strong leadership.

The interdepartmental network on sustainable development strategies is a working-level committee comprising representatives from over 28 departments. It is chaired by Environment Canada and acts as an information exchange and coordination body. It recently brought together over 100 people from its member departments to begin planning a coordinated approach to the updating of sustainable development strategies, which is required, as you know, by the end of 2000.

Finally, Environment Canada is leading the interdepartmental sustainability project under the federal government's policy research initiative. This recent development reflects the growing awareness of the importance of ensuring that policy development related to achieving sustainability is based on a strong foundation of horizontal policy research with a medium- to long-term focus. The central goal of the project is to improve federal capacity to address the sustainable development implementation gap.

I hope this provides you with a useful flavour of some of the work we're doing within Environment Canada, with respect to sustainable development.

I'm here with my colleague to address any questions of the committee across this wide range of activities in Environment Canada.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Dr. Gill, s'il vous plaît.

Dr. Shawn D. Gill (Environmental Coordinator, Administrative Services and Property Management, National Research Council Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you no doubt know, the National Research Council is a departmental corporation and appears on schedule II of the Financial Administration Act. It is incorporated pursuant to the National Research Council Act, with powers to acquire and hold real property. This in itself sets us apart from many federal departments. It has a mandate to undertake, assist and promote scientific industrial research in various areas, as may benefit Canadians.

As part of the industry portfolio, NRC is Canada's principal public sector R and D agency, with facilities and services that concentrate in key areas that support Canadian innovation and promote Canadian economic competitiveness.

Our research programs concentrate in defined areas, such as biotechnology in support of the medical sciences, agriculture and aquaculture; the information and telecommunications sector; manufacturing technologies; the construction industry; the aerospace industry and ocean engineering. We maintain Canada's national measurement standards, provide certified reference materials for the public and other government agencies, and operate the astronomical observation program.

NRC also operates two widely recognized technical information and assistance programs: the national science library, which we refer to as CISTI; and the industrial research assistance program, or IRAP.

We are headquartered in Ottawa, with NRC research facilities organized into seventeen research institutes, nine of which are located here in the national capital region, and eight of which are located across the country in other urban centres. In Ottawa we're located at the Montreal Road campus, what we call the Uplands campus, and of course at our Sussex laboratory.

• 0950

We own approximately 170 buildings and 6,000 acres of land, and employ 3,000 personnel. But we also provide laboratory space for 700 to 800 guest workers. That's a euphemism we use. These people may be from academia or from the private sector, but we have to have a word to characterize them all. Our budget is set at $522 million this fiscal year, of which about $375 million will be directly spent on research here in Canada.

The management of NRC's environmental affairs is set out in its policy on environmental management. Essentially, under this policy environmental responsibilities are attributed to the directors general of the seventeen research institutes and four corporate branches we have here in Ottawa.

Recognizing that facilities are subject to differences in regulatory regimes, because of the different municipalities and provinces in which they reside, our policy accords particular attention to the code of environmental stewardship that requires compliance with the standards of the jurisdiction in which the facility resides.

So in practice, each institute nominates a responsibility officer for environmental matters, and serves on a liaison committee chaired by myself, the environmental coordinator. I serve as sort of the principal resource person and major domo of environmental affairs for the council. This arrangement is supported by annual meetings of these responsibility officers.

Under this arrangement, my office is responsible for ensuring that NRC facilities and programs are compliant with the federal requirements, such as CEPA, the chemical weapons convention, Atomic Energy Control Board regulations, and the provincial and municipal requirements respecting air emissions, sewer use, noise, and hazardous waste disposal. We accomplish this function through informal site visits, and then by environmental audits conducted by private consulting firms under contract to our office.

In the Ottawa area, where we have nine research institutes, we can have the luxury of adopting another practice based on the common activities of the nine institutes, such as monitoring their sewer effluent, stack emissions, and our hazardous waste disposal practices—or simply doing the annual report on petroleum tanks, which has a check on their integrity. In Ottawa I provide this service on behalf of the nine research institutes.

We also have a very viable and active occupational safety and health committee system. That's supported by a different office or responsibility desk, but in many instances safety and environmental issues are indistinguishable. This committee system serves as an informal but valuable secondary check on workplace practices that may have environmental implications. So it helps me in my practice.

Our office also does phase one and phase two audits of any properties that are up for acquisition or disposal. Any abnormalities are added to a list of environmental liabilities.

• 0955

I'd like to say one or two words about something slightly different—our emergency preparedness policy. This NRC policy on emergency preparedness is really a loss prevention contingency; it's a management tool. It's required under CEPA and the Canadian Labour Code, but not in those terms. Although it wasn't intended as an environmental management tool, our policy requires each facility to conduct a risk assessment of its facilities and programs. This provides me with a tertiary check on practices that have a potentially significant environmental impact.

CEAA does not impact us seriously because it's restricted primarily, in our case, to construction projects, of which we have very few.

On conservation measures, as a research organization one of our major challenges has been the management of our utility costs, particularly in the face of reduced budget allocations. In 1989 NRC completed a comprehensive water audit for all its Ottawa facilities. At that time it was quite common to use city water to cool laboratory instruments such as magnets, lasers, vacuum pumps and compressors. We were using city water and then just dumping it down the drain, of course. But by investing in closed-loop systems, plugging leaks and so on, we managed to reduce our water consumption, in dollar terms, by $300,000 a year for the Montreal Road campus alone.

Also in 1989, NRC was the first federal agency to sign an energy performance contract for four buildings on the Montreal Road campus. The cost of this project was $1.6 million, but we realized a saving in electricity costs of $400,000 a year—that's $100,000 a building. It was so successful that we now have a full-time energy management engineer to exploit these opportunities throughout the rest of the Ottawa region and our Canadian facilities.

In 1994 NRC was the first federal facility to use co-generation to reduce the quantity of electricity it was purchasing from Ontario Hydro. On the Montreal Road campus we installed a $6.7 million gas turbine, coupled to a 4.5 megawatt generator, to displace approximately 40% of the electricity we were purchasing. The steam generated from the exhaust of this gas turbine is used for heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. This project has a 5.7 year payback period, but it now serves as an example of success for other organizations seeking to reduce their utility costs, as the province moves toward electrical deregulation.

Another innovation has been the installation of an ice-making facility that chills an underground reservoir. The chilled water is then used for air conditioning in buildings and in our wind tunnel. The significance of this facility is that the ice slurry can be created during the weekend and evenings in off-peak utility periods when there is a 72% reduction in electricity rates. This project has had a payback period of two years. So taken collectively, these initiatives have saved us $4 million in electrical charges annually for the Montreal Road campus alone.

In conclusion, although the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act concerning sustainable development plans did not include the NRC, considerable progress has been made toward attaining the underlying objectives of the amendments.

• 1000

Also, on the May 1996 Auditor General's report and the code of environmental stewardship, NRC, like many other federal organizations, did not prepare conservation pledges nor targets as part of that policy. However, the principles outlined in the code were assumed to be applicable to NRC and were incorporated into our policy on environmental management, and are practised.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We are ready now for the usual round of questions. We'll start with Mr. Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Emmett, in paragraph six of your presentation you indicate that the two departments that haven't complied to your satisfaction with the strategy were Statistics Canada and NRC. They're both here to make presentations on things they have done. Now, is this not what you're after? Has what they presented satisfied in your mind the strategy for stewardship?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, I think what I would say in response to that is I don't know whether what they're doing satisfies the generally accepted good practice in government, because plans do not exist. We've not had an opportunity to review them, and we can't reach a conclusion. The information is not available to us. I think the second part of that equation is that the agency that prepares the stewardship strategy or plan does not benefit from the feedback that's available from our experience in looking across some of the major departments of government, or all of the major departments of government.

Mr. Rick Casson: So as far as a long-term plan or any strategy is concerned, you have not had one from either one of these departments to compare it?

Mr. Brian Emmett: No, and they're not required to submit them. Only schedule one departments are required to submit them according to the amendments of the Auditor General Act. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are volunteers. I think it would be a good idea from our point of view, from the point of view of the environment, and from the point of view of the entities involved. From the point of view of the National Research Council, Statistics Canada, and others, I think there are a lot of benefits to be obtained from doing those sorts of plans and having them submitted to scrutiny.

Mr. Rick Casson: Can somebody comment from the department's point of view? Is there a plan in place to expand this program and to make it mandatory for all departments of government to take part and to prepare statements? Could somebody answer that?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can just mention that I am not aware of any plans for further amendments to the Auditor General Act. Certainly we welcome people who want to benefit from submitting an environmental plan or a stewardship plan to the Speaker, and having that referred to us for examination. I would assume that would be on a voluntary basis. But I'm not aware of any discussion that the act should be modified to cast a broader net.

We already cover all of what we would think of as the major departments of government—NRCan, environment, etc. What is not covered are the agencies—I think Dr. Gill laid out some of the legal reasons why—and the crown corporations. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea for them to do the same thing.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Arseneault, you mentioned in your report that you were asked in 1998 to further extend your plan on reducing gas emissions. That plan is to be ready by the end of 1999-2000. Can you enlighten us a little bit on what kind of actions you're taking—concrete actions you're taking?

Mr. Richard Arseneault: Yes. We've taken a lot of concrete actions already in this department in terms of applying our own federal building initiative to all our buildings across Canada, to reduce the energy consumption of those buildings, by retrofitting the various systems in those buildings. Also, in terms of managing our own fleet and managing our own waste, there are benefits related to greenhouse gas emissions from that.

• 1005

Now, because of Kyoto, what we've done is good, but it's not enough. We have to do more than what we've done in the past, and now we are going back to look at those energy audits that we did a few years ago in all our buildings and identifying whether opportunities exist in those buildings for reducing the energy consumption, and the greenhouse gas emissions related to our facilities as well.

On the fleet side, we are moving more and more toward.... In the national capital region, at least, we've created a pool of cars so we don't need as many cars. As well, over the last few years we've been in the process of buying alternative fuel cars and now we're going to be exploring electric cars as well. So we have a plan in place to further our reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. But now we're exploring other opportunities that could exist, which we will put together in an action plan by the end of this fiscal year for senior management approval.

Mr. Rick Casson: Will your plan reach the goals set?

Mr. Richard Arseneault: That's what we're aiming for, obviously.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do you feel that you can?

Mr. Richard Arseneault: It's too early to say. We're certainly trying. Obviously we work very closely with our office of energy efficiency in NRCan, which has the leadership role in the federal government with our partners from Environment Canada, public works, and Treasury Board, in terms of defining the framework for all federal departments. But as NRCan, we have to walk the talk and take the lead and show the example. That's why our deputy asked us, even though the federal initiative is not in place yet—they're still working on it—to look into our own operations, our own assets, to see if there are any more opportunities to limit the greenhouse gas emissions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, Ms. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Emmett, I'm very pleased to welcome you here today. Once again, you have made some very interesting observations in this chapter of your report.

You indicated that you were unable to find answers to some of your questions and that this concerned you a great deal. I also note that 28 agencies, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, still are not covered by the Code of Environmental Stewardship and are excluded from the provisions of the Auditor General Act.

This is the first time that I have attended a hearing like this. What steps should we take to get the government to amend the legislation so that you have some authority over these agencies in the area of sustainable development? Do you have any ideas that you would care to share with us?

Mr. Brian Emmett: That's a good question. Two courses of action are possible. Firstly, the Auditor General Act could be amend to include a provision requiring a greater number of agencies and Crown corporations to submit an environmental plan to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Secondly, they could be made to comply with the Code of Environmental Stewardship Code which was brought in in 1992. Currently, I'm looking at whether this code is still in effect and whether it continues to apply to these agencies excluded from the act.

It would probably be easier to compel them to comply with the Code of Environmental Stewardship than it would be to amend the act. That's why the code continues to be an important tool.

• 1010

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Laliberte, the chair.

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

In regard to the Environment Canada document, you talked about an interdepartmental policy research project looking at horizontal policy research with a medium- to long-term focus, and that one of the first activities under the project is to develop an inventory on some of these issues. I'm wondering if anything is on paper, and if as members of the committee we can see some of this material.

Ms. Norine Smith: This work has fairly recently been started. The policy research initiative chose sustainable development as an overarching theme only early in the year—late January, I believe. We have a very early draft of the inventory, and as it gets better developed and becomes a more polished document we'd be pleased to share it with the committee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Is it possible to get a briefing for interested members then?

Ms. Norine Smith: Certainly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Emmett, and anyone else who wants to jump in on this question, I'm greatly concerned about the issue of science capacity within the federal government, and I believe strongly that it affects our ability to move toward sustainability. It affects our ability to green the government. It affects our ability to make good environmental protection decisions. It affects our ability to make good health protection decisions. For example, MMT: we didn't have the proper scientific analysis on that particular issue, and therefore we were not able to protect ourselves as a government.

I would like to know if science capacity or the issue of science is an element that is being looked at within sustainable development strategies. So could Mr. Emmett comment, as well as any of the other witnesses.

The Chairman: Might I interject that this question may go well beyond the stewardship issue before us today. Nevertheless, if Mr. Emmett is bold enough, by all means comment, please.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Kraft Sloan raises a very important question, and it's one we've given a great deal of thought to. I must say we've given a great deal of thought to it not in relation to this specific topic, but to the much lengthier report that I will be tabling on May 25.

I think when you look in there you will find a fair number of comments about our concern about the impact of events over the last 10 years or so on the capacity of the Government of Canada to take informed decisions, I think both with respect to science and with respect to policy. There's science capacity, and there's policy capacity. I think both are on our minds. It's something I'd actually prefer to come back to on May 25—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure.

Mr. Brian Emmett: —if that were possible, because we do have a specific comment and specific figures on that at that time.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Emmett, I guess my question related to the sustainable development strategies themselves and whether there were elements within the sustainable development strategies that address the issue of science and science capacity. So it's not so much whether the science capacity is good or bad, because I think it leans toward not so good, but whether it's seen as a criterion for measurement or a performance objective or it's seen as an important element of an environmental management system or a sustainable development strategy. Is it being considered?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Okay, thank you for that. I don't recall the sustainable development strategies having a great deal explicit to say on things like capacity. I think departments were much more focused on doing what they had been asked to do in A Guide to Green Government and other places. That was to produce a document that had a good understanding of the issues it faced, was produced in consultation with stakeholders, and was.... There were about six different requirements.

• 1015

Generally we've found that people make good faith efforts and that we had documents that generally did what they were asked to do. I think my concern with them was not so much that they failed to mention capacity, although probably if I went back and looked at them today, that might be much more on my mind. Our concern with them was much more that they didn't lay out what they intended to do in specific enough terms to judge whether progress was being made toward their goals.

And secondly, related to the capacity issue, I felt they too much reflected the status quo. They continued to think that the future would be like the past and focused too much on preparing to deal with today's problems tomorrow. I felt they should have a little bit more over-the-horizon thinking. I think it's something that's probably linked to science and policy capacity, but not that explicit.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Jordan, Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Herron, Ms. Torsney, and the chair.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Good morning. I want to welcome the guests here.

Dr. Gill, I'm intrigued by the conservation measures that NRC has taken, both in terms of the cost-savings and the payback. Certainly 5.7 is outside commercialization, but a two-year payback is somethimng industry could deal with. Were these projects developed and implemented with in-house people, people from your department?

Dr. Shawn Gill: Yes, they were. I probably shouldn't volunteer this particularly, but—

Mr. Joe Jordan: You don't have to.

Dr. Shawn Gill: They're very successful. The point I was going to say was—

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's secondary to my point. My point is that the mandate in NRC is research and scientific stuff to benefit Canadians, but when I look at the disciplines you list I don't see an environmental conservation thing there. Why aren't we encouraging research into these types of projects so that industries can use them on a wider scale? You're living proof that they work, but I don't see this type of research being listed unless it's under manufacturing technologies. If I had an idea for something like this and I went to NRC, is there somewhere that would end up?

Dr. Shawn Gill: Yes, but we're not by any means unique in this. These projects were really off the shelf. We're the first to adopt them. In fact, I think in this ice flurry, the last example we used, CANMET out in Bells Corners, which is part of NRCan now, had a unit like that before we did. One of the reasons our co-generation project got ahead was that we managed to get in under the wire with Ontario Hydro before there was a prohibition on these projects.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But those types of technologies and their wider use isn't really a mandate of yours.

Dr. Shawn Gill: No. To be honest, it was just to save money. Money just conveniently translates into a conservation of resources.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Goulet, I want to refer to your report, on page 3 at the bottom.

Mr. Yvon Goulet: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: One of the outcomes, you're saying, is virtual elimination of all toxic waste. What's your definition of “virtual elimination”? Are you just saying that you've all but eliminated it? The term “virtual elimination” has meaning in a technical sense. Are you referring to a technical meaning there, or is it just semantics?

Mr. Yvon Goulet: No. When I said “virtual elimination” it is that we had toxic waste in 1992 of approximately 2,000 kilograms, and in 1998 we are at 50 kilograms.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Yvon Goulet: Therefore if you go from 2,000 to 50, it's “virtual elimination”. There is not much left.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's an ongoing debate. But there is some left.

Mr. Yvon Goulet: Yes.

• 1020

Mr. Joe Jordan: But I do want to congratulate you on your presentation.

This next question is to Mr. Emmett. I don't know whose authority this comes under, but it seems to me that one of the things business does is they enforce very strict generally accepted accounting principles, so that we're comparing apples to apples all the time. And this debate is going on about the European Community and the way they keep their books.

It seems to me that when we have this many briefs, it might be better to have a template to have each department report on the same things year after year after year. I really like the notion of these trends going in the right direction, because those are outcomes I can see. In the other ones everyone has different ways of presenting information, but it's less quantifiable. So I'm wondering if there's any thought being given to trying to come up with a set of indicators and then telling each department to put their information against these indicators. Not only will it help us in a given year, but it will certainly help us comparing year to year.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Yes, Mr. Jordan, that's a question I've actually given a lot of thought to, basically because it's one of the things the office I work in specializes in. I work with a large number of accountants, and they're specialists in measurements and the use of standards. I don't think we would be very happy as participants in the economy if everybody prepared their balance sheets at the end of the year and calculated profit on the basis of different assumptions.

The problem on the environmental side is that we haven't had the 400 years of gradually building up the environmental accounting profession that financial accountants have had, so we're at the beginning of a fairly long journey. But certainly my view is that one of the problems of the environment is the old aphorism that what gets measured gets done. On the environment its tough to measure and therefore it's tough to track and it's tough to get things done. It's tough to manage. The better we do at developing common methods of approaching environmental balance sheets or green reports or sustainable development reports, I think by far the better off we are. But something has to be economy-wide, not just within the government.

We are trying to work with the 24 departments in trying to get partners to say “How can we make a start to make sure that when we say department A has done well and department B has done not so well, we're comparing apples with apples?” I think that's a very fundamental point, and it involves a lot of nitty-gritty, unglamorous work that we just have to sit down and do.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Some of it is already quantified in different forms. We pay for the gas we use in the vehicles, so we should be able to track how much gas we use. The StatsCan report has given us some paper usage—

Mr. Brian Emmett: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You know that's one. I realize that you have to wait until there's consensus, but you have to start somewhere. I think it might be possible to put together a set of indicators.

Mr. Brian Emmett: It should be possible, and we're working on it. Last year in my report we talked about a project we have with the Department of Agriculture. But one of the problems is that, for example, if you go and look at a department with let's say 100 labs, and you say let's get hold of energy consumption—and Dr. Gill has given a very good example of saving money by using energy wisely—I think you would find that of the 100 labs, they probably measure energy consumption in 100 different ways, some in dollars, some in joules, etc. Even at that simple a level there is harmonization to do, and I think there's no reason we should not be taking the first steps right now.

I think the maturity of something like this is going to be in the longer term. But to me I think the broader point is to have the capacity to have a neutral outside observer, either the commissioner or somebody from the private sector who is trained in commonly held standards, to be able to pass judgment and say this environmental report meets the basic standards of accuracy and the reporting and so on. I think that would be an enormous advance for helping people make better decisions.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think the commissioner would be fine doing that. I think he's demonstrated complete independence. I think that's where it belongs. I'd certainly support that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

• 1025

Rick Laliberte, John Herron, Paddy Torsney, Charles Caccia. We will be able to accommodate one questioner, namely Rick Laliberte, before the vote at 10.48, and then we'll do the other three and possibly a second round after the vote. Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you.

I think I've raised this before in previous appearances by other departments. In Ottawa, being the centre of our government operations, at night the lights seem to be kept burning. My view on this is that we're given a candle to light ourselves, but we don't save that candle for our children. That's the fear I have. The message we had from Kyoto was to be careful and put the candle out and maybe save it for your grandchildren.

We seem to have a fear of darkness. When you fly over most cities, you see empty parking lots just lit to the hilt. Why don't we employ our youth? This is a connection here. NRCan may have alluded to our energy conservation—I don't want to assume how they did it—but last time the answer I got was they were waiting for a technical device, a computer chip or something, to turn our lights off for us automatically, an automatic switch-off or something, or designing new buildings that do this, smart buildings, they call them.

Why don't we simply go back to the old ways and have somebody shut the switch off? Employ our youth. We have youth that are going to be free all summer. Why not create a job creation program, have the young people run up and down the stairs, if they have to, and shut these lights off at night? We'd be doing two things. We always look at technology to save us. We can't. We've got to save ourselves. If we empower our youth, it's a society change that we're going to create here.

When we went to Kyoto, and that's what I used last time, we went to Kyoto in Japan. Their lights were all off downtown in a major city. There are millions of people living in these cities, and their lights were off. It's an example we use. The foreign affairs department could probably get these society changes and share them, but we need a dialogue. When you mentioned that there is a prohibition on co-generation in Ontario, is that a fact?

Dr. Shawn Gill: Not now.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Not now. It was then?

Dr. Shawn Gill: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There's another thing. We have OECD for international dialogue, but I think CCME, the provincial ministers, should be part of this dialogue. The FCM, the municipalities, should be part of this dialogue, and the health, the school, the school boards. Why don't we have a national conference? We have NRCan and the greenhouse secretariat that have these closed-door 12-issue tables. Let's have a national conference. Let's have the people of this country discuss our environmental problems.

Let's roll up our sleeves, let's share our technologies, let's have regional dialogues, if we want, and let's start discussing this. It's a new millennium. Let's go on to a new journey. Let's clean up our act and let's save our resources. Let's have a sustainable future. But we're not going to do it on Parliament Hill in committee rooms; we're going to have to do it out there. We're going to have to talk to the students, to parents, grandparents, farmers, workers, everybody. Dialogue starts from leadership. I think—

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, the officials can only answer us within the framework of stewardship mandates. You are going into policy at large. Would you mind perhaps posing a question?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What tickled my brain was virtual elimination. But 2,020 kilograms brought down to 50, and you have 0.025%.... I think that decimal is in the wrong place; I think it's a 2.5% reduction. It's just a matter that coming from Statistics Canada—

The Chairman: So it was Statistics Canada—

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to raise that.

Regarding the power to ensure sustainable development, I think somebody has to take leadership. Either, as the Auditor General has stated, we should change the act, or else Environment Canada should maybe adopt sustainable development as a highlight, as we have here in the committee. It's simply a statement; I'm just empowering you until next time.

The Chairman: Is there no answer, no comment?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I feel empowered, Mr. Chairman.

• 1030

The Chairman: All right. Let's resume here with the other three questioners and a possible second round shortly after 10.48. It will be a short vote, so we should be able to be here at 11 o'clock.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Don't we have a briefing on CEPA at 11 o'clock as well?

The Chairman: Not to my knowledge.

The briefing will have to wait. This committee takes precedence.

• 1031

• 1142

The Chairman: It's not easy to proceed, as much as I would like, in a forum of almost a tête-à-tête. So we will have to conclude this incomplete meeting. There has been some interference, by way of a meeting that has been called in another building at 10.50. The e-mail announces that tomorrow there is a briefing for MPs on Bill C-32. The e-mail is dated May 13, so technically it is supposed to be tomorrow, but evidently people have interpreted it to mean today. Perhaps they are right. Colleagues who probably intended to come back have felt they should give precedence to this technical briefing.

On their behalf, I would want at least to thank you for your participation, for your efforts, for your input and for your answers. I cannot promise you that we will hold another meeting on this subject, because the committee's schedule is fairly heavy right now. I will try, but I'm not so sure we will be able to arrange something.

In conclusion, I hope I'm interpreting correctly the thinking of some, if not all, my colleagues by highlighting items 8, 9, 10, and 11 in Mr. Emmett's brief. He points to the sustainable development strategy and the fact that there is a big gap between those who are implementing and those who are not implementing the code of environmental stewardship within the federal government.

There is also a reference in his text that it is not clear how the federal government plans to encourage crown corporations to adopt good environmental practices.

• 1145

Finally, in item 11 he states that there is a risk that the federal government will not achieve its original objective of government-wide greening, as was the original intention under the 1990 Green Plan.

These are very important signals the commissioner is sending us, and for which I thank him. I would be grateful if an indication could be given, by way of a letter to committee members, on how this gap could be bridged and how the original objective could be achieved so that we can get something tangible and constructive out of this meeting.

I recall very well that when we tried very hard to include schedule two agencies under the bill passed in 1995 creating the position of commissioner, we did not succeed. I'm very keenly aware of that fact. However, there may be other ways of bringing them on board.

I would therefore urge you, Mr. Emmett, if you would be so kind, to give us some comments, some advice on how we can proceed on the strength of your comments from item 8 onwards. Is that a reasonable request?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to do that.

The Chairman: All right. We'll consider that as an interim report. It doesn't have to be on glossy paper. It just has to give us the elements of how you see the next leap forward ought to be engineered.

So having the silent unanimous consent of my absent colleagues, I thank you again for your participation and I look forward to seeing you on another occasion.

The meeting is adjourned.