[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
.0836 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chair.
[Translation]
I am prepared to entertain motions to that effect.
[English]
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Mr. Clerk, I move that Charles Caccia be elected chair.
Motion agreed to
Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): I'd like to nominate Paul Forseth of the Reform Party for the vice-chair position.
The Clerk: I would just like to complete the election of the chair, after which we will have to elect an acting chair. At that moment the acting chair will receive motions for the election of the vice-chairs.
I declare Charles Caccia duly elected chair of the committee in absentia. Since Mr. Caccia is absent, we will now proceed to the election of an acting chair for this meeting. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I move that Peter Adams be the acting chair for this meeting.
Motion agreed to
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): We're going to proceed with the election of the two vice-chairs. As I'm very new to this position, I thought I would read the Standing Order. Standing Order 106(2) states:
- Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom
two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the
government....
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Paul Forseth for the position of opposition vice-chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): It seems to me that this is the second vice-chair. Could I have nominations -
Mrs. Jennings: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I understand there is -
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): - for the first vice-chair? Excuse me.
[Translation]
M. Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Ms. Payne
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): Agreed. Ms. Payne has been nominated for the position of first Vice-Chair.
.0840
[English]
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is really no difference between first and second vice-chair in the rules. I would like to say again that I nominate Paul Forseth for whichever one.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): Ms Jennings, I was following the procedure here. It seems that this is the government vice-chair. We are electing two. When I proceeded to the first vice-chair, I think I was asking for nominations for the government vice-chair.
Mrs. Jennings: I'm sorry. You weren't clear. Here it says it could be either.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): I do apologize. I was just reading from this little script.
Mrs. Jennings: That's fine.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): We have the nomination by Mr. Asselin of Jean Payne as the government vice-chair, the first vice-chair.
Motion agreed to
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): I will now take nominations for the second vice-chair.
Mrs. Jennings: I nominate Paul Forseth for the position of the other vice-chair. I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Ms. Monique Guay for the position of Vice-Chair.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): I am going to proceed with a recorded vote as Ms Jennings requested. I'll proceed first with the nomination of Mr. Forseth. If that vote is successful, I assume we do not proceed to the second one.
I ask for a vote on Ms Jennings' motion that Paul Forseth be the second vice-chair.
Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 2
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): We will now proceed with Mr. Asselin's motion that Mrs. Guay be the second vice-chair.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Adams): Mrs. Guay is our second vice-chair.
[Translation]
I congratulate the vice-chairs.
[English]
I will now hand over the chair to our new government vice-chair, Jean Payne.
.0845
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Good morning, and thank you very much for your vote. I'm glad to be back as your vice-chair for another term.
We will carry on to the second agenda item for today, pursuant to Standing Orders 111(1) and (2), consideration of the Order in Council appointment of Ian Glen to the position of Deputy Minister of Environment.
I don't think Mr. Glen has arrived yet. We will then proceed to the other part of this agenda, which is other business.
The Clerk: The motion on your agenda is a motion to retain the services of Miss Stephanie Meakin to assist researcher Tom Curran in his report on biotechnology. That was discussed previously and was agreed to in principle. So this is the motion to retain Stephanie Meakin. You have her CV.
I was asked to point out that she was on secondment with the Liberal research bureau. She's a consultant, and she's required because of her skills in and knowledge of biotechnology. So I was asked to make sure that piece of information was brought up. She was on contract for a few months with them. The contract is for a maximum of $3,500, and it's for a per diem of $350 a day. It's purely background work, doing the analysis building up to the report.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Do we have concurrence with that?
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I so move.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Do we need a seconder for this, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: No.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Are there any objections to this motion?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Clerk: The second item of business is a letter to the minister supporting the program SustainABILITY, a witness we had here last week. There was a lack of quorum, so the motion was presented and it was agreed that we would move it at the next meeting when there was a quorum.
Mr. Lincoln has the background information on SustainABILITY.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Any questions on that matter?
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I so move.
Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): I second the motion.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.0850
The Clerk: The fourth item is an information item. I was informed that there is a delegation of German parliamentarians in Ottawa on October 3. Their interest lies in environment, and they would like to participate in one of the committee meetings.
It came to my attention that KPMG, the consulting firm, will be giving us a briefing on the American model that day. It would be interesting to have the German parliamentarians participate at the tail end of the meeting to give the committee their views of biotechnology as it relates to Germany. I understand that Germany has a rather strict regulatory process when it comes to biotechnology. It would be interesting to see the contrasts between the American and German models.
If the committee agrees, I can go ahead with this.
Mr. Lincoln: You mentioned KPGM had a model. What model is that, of the American committee system?
The Clerk: No, the American regulatory system for biotechnology.
Mr. Lincoln: Okay.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Would that be at our regular morning time, at 8:30 a.m.?
The Clerk: That's correct.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: How long will they be here?
The Clerk: I don't have the details yet.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Sometimes we've met over breakfast or lunch or something like that. Maybe we can have an informal.... If they're interested in environmental concerns maybe we can arrange something with the committee members again. Perhaps you can give us some information about their itinerary.
The Clerk: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mrs. Jennings.
Mrs. Jennings: I'm also interested in that. I'd like to know how long they're going to be here before October 3. Perhaps we could meet with them if we can't make the meeting.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Okay.
We're still waiting for Mr. Glen to arrive. Does anybody have any other matters they want to bring up at this time?
Mr. Knutson: Has there ever been any discussion of starting our meetings at 9 a.m. as opposed to 8:30 a.m., especially when we have light agendas?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): The chair has some reasons for wanting to start at 8:30 a.m. I think we had this discussion last year. I have no particular objection to either time, but if it's something we need to change, if some people are finding it difficult to make this meeting at 8:30 a.m., I think it would have to be discussed. I don't know Mr. Caccia's reasons for wanting to start then - except for the fact that he's probably a very early person and has a lot of things to do during the day. I wouldn't want to take it upon myself to say yes or no to that, but I think it's certainly a matter for discussion if other members of the committee have some objections.
Mr. Knutson: It's just that when we have a light agenda, as we do today, I'd prefer that we start later. But that's only one person's view.
The Clerk: On that one, the meeting was scheduled for 9 a.m., but we scheduled the election at 8:30 a.m. and allowed half an hour for the election. I realize now that perhaps that was....
Mr. Lincoln: You expected a lot of contestation, I suppose -
The Clerk: No, I guess I just wanted to give lots of time.
Mr. Lincoln: - or a very hard floor fight.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Are our other meetings normally scheduled for 9 a.m.?
The Clerk: Well, 8:30 a.m. is the wish of the chair, but we vary.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Are there any other strenuous objections to the starting time?
Mrs. Jennings: Madam Chair, some of us do have meetings at 8 a.m. Tuesdays, so if 9 a.m. is okay with the chair, then I would certainly be in agreement with that.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We'll make it a point to bring the matter up with the chair. I'm sure he has specific reasons for wanting to begin early. It probably has to do with his own schedule and the schedule of some other members of the committee who also have very busy days.
Mrs. Jennings: Having said that, I can't speak for Mr. Forseth. He's away right now, and I haven't even talked to him about it.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Asselin, do you have a preference?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I don't have a problem with 8:30 a.m. The early bird catches the worm.
.0855
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): The early bird catches the worm.
Okay, then it will be a matter for discussion with the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Glen. Thank you for appearing this morning.
I will simply read the order in council and then I'm sure the committee members will have some comments to make.
- Pursuant to Standing Orders 111(1) and 111(2), consideration of the order in council
appointment of Ian Glenn to the position of Deputy Minister of Environment.
Mr. Glen, in looking at this last week, I expected a much older man. I think this is probably the second time I've seen you, and I'd almost forgotten just how old you were. I remembered you as a relatively young person, which you are. However, you have accomplished a lot in your lifetime.
I want to congratulate you on the reappointment. First of all you may want to make a statement and then the members may have some questions or comments following that.
Thank you.
Mr. D. Ian Glen (Deputy Minister of Environment): Thank you very much for having me here today.
I'll start off on a down note. My last name only has one ``n''.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): That's better than what I do; I keep saying Glens.
Mr. Glen: Also, I'm 50, so I'm not only starting a new job, but I've sort of crossed another barrier point of life. This summer my kids, who are 10 and 12, thought it was really quite funny that dad had turned 50. So I'm having to adjust to a lot of different expectations these days.
Very briefly, in terms of just who I am, and I appreciate that the biographical information was passed around, I'm a newcomer to the environment. This is quite a new career opportunity for me. I am a career public servant. I started with the federal government in 1975, and I've gone through a number of different departments, both as a legal adviser and as a policy adviser at the assistant deputy minister and associate deputy minister level.
My professional background is that of a lawyer. I was in private practice before joining the government, and essentially worked in the administrative law or public advisory part of the Department of Justice in the early part of my career.
My exposure to environmental issues really was, like many people in government, tangential. There might be environmental aspects of particular issues you'd work on in other departments. Most recently, as deputy secretary for cabinet operations, I did see environmental issues come through the cabinet committees. But I've had no direct involvement in the environment department or in their policy area, so it's quite a new opportunity for me.
.0900
In the five weeks in which I've been on the job learning more about the department, learning about the issues that it has to lead on in government, I've probably had impressions similar to those of some of you who would be perhaps new to the area as you became members of the committee. I am really appreciating just the scope of the issues and, more critically, the depth of them, and by that I mean just how quickly you get below the surface of the general appreciation of the issue and realize it's very much a science-driven subject area, one in which the technical appreciation of not only the nature of the problem but the source of solutions can really take you down into a lot of detail. When dealing with the general public, with this committee and others, we will try to ensure that officials do both, that they try to put the issues in a broader perspective in appreciation of what they're doing, but that they also have the capacity to assist in the detail when that's warranted.
I've also been impressed by the degree to which it is touching on many other areas of government activity, and the degree to which the federal government continues to have a very important leadership role both within Canada and internationally. In my early going, I have been quite impressed by the degree to which employees of Environment Canada are tasked in many commissions or international fora to advance the cause of good environmental practices, to educate people internationally, and to do likewise here in Canada. From that perspective, I found it to be quite a start to a new job. I appreciate the degree to which employees in this department of the federal government really are in many ways ambassadors of change and of good environmental deportment around the world.
In terms of the priorities we're addressing now and to which I'm being exposed to as I start up, clearly we're engaged in a fairly significant undertaking with the provinces to try to harmonize our practices, our joint management of the environment across the country. Also, emanating from the Speech from the Throne, officials are presently working on completing the drafting of two bills. One would be modernization amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the other one would introduce a new endangered species protection act. Both of those initiatives are at an advanced stage of drafting, and I would anticipate that if we hold the schedule, both bills would be introduced by the government before Christmas, during the fall session.
Within the department, we're also advancing on what we're calling the fostering of environmental citizenship. That's a continuation of working with Canadians, of informing and educating Canadians on environmental issues and good environmental practices; of working significantly in creating jobs for protecting the environment; of advancing the development of environmental industries located in Canada. To that end, one of the initiatives we're now working on this fall is to support our minister in leading an environmental industries trade mission to Latin America, which should take place during the month of November. In our own small way, it's sort of Environment's Team Canada initiative internationally.
As we go into this next year, there are a number of important international events that will engage either myself, the minister or officials as we deal with the further work on climate change, the fifth anniversary of the United Nations Rio Conference, and celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. A number of initiatives of that nature will occupy our time.
There is one area of activity in which I'm going to have to find the right measure of effectiveness, and it is what I would call advancing the partnerships. A partnership with provincial governments and the territories is in fact part of what we're doing on harmonization. We're already quite engaged in various subcommittees or deputies committees working under the cover of what they call the CCME. I'd say that more critically, however, the partnerships have to reach out to industry and to the environmental NGO groups.
.0905
Briefly, in Canada alone there are over 2,000 NGO groups. That's quite overwhelming. So how does one effectively reach out to those groups? Obviously, you don't meet with them all one by one. I think the same could be said for you people as members of Parliament. Some will be selected by issue, some would be through their own coming together in the arrangements they have. I need to know in the months ahead what really is necessary and what works in order to reach out to those groups.
I had occasion last week to meet with a collectivity of representatives of various industry associations involved in environmental issues, and that was a start on that side. I have met with some of the NGOs, but, as I've said, I have to put in train a process to effectively reach out to them. In this area, it's becoming quite clear that you can't do it alone - the federal government can't do it alone, the provincial governments can't do it alone. It really is done through partnerships and through making them effective. We'll have to reach out to support aboriginal interests as they develop and advance self-government interests. How in turn do we support them and understand what they will wish to bring in terms of governance to environmental management?
So I think the partnership part of the job is going to be quite time-consuming, but quite important. I don't wish to say I'll be the ambassador for the department, but I do think one of the markers against which I'll have to be judged is whether or not I have been able to advance and maintain effective relationships with the many parties that are interested in our agenda.
That's it as an opening, if I may.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Glen. There's no doubt that you do have great insight into the department and what it stands for, and into the things that need to be accomplished. Your sense of where the department should be going and needs to go is indeed very keen. I'm sure the challenges ahead will be ones you will enjoy, what with the restrictions on the economics and economies of the department.
As expected, I think all of the members of the committee have questions, and I will start with Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Glen, we're very pleased to see you here, and we welcome you.
You talked about the partnerships. You're actually taking over a tiny department, as I see it. I think it's tiny within the federal system, and even if you looked across the country, the numbers of employees in the provincial environment ministries or their equivalents are much larger than your own. I'm concerned about that, although I would never see a Department of the Environment being the largest government department. I think your job is to influence other departments, to influence other segments of the country and so on, as you were describing. My concern, however, is that you may have become so small that in these partnerships you will very often be either the lesser partner or the silent partner. I wonder if you could comment on that. How, from this small base, are you going to exert the influence that many of us here would like to see you exert?
Mr. Glen: We're at just over 4,500 employees, so I think I'd have to bring some care to claiming we're too small. We still have a significant employee base relative to some of the other federal departments that we would have to work with, and some of them are obviously getting smaller as well. That's the natural outcome of the program review initiatives.
So how do we outreach? I'll start it at home base with the federal government. We really have to encourage quite effective working partnerships with departments such as Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture Canada, the Department of Health. We need to particularly ensure that we are working well together to maintain the science base that we need to generate the knowledge and inform the program development and the outreach.
.0910
In terms of Environment Canada, I have already expressed to staff my concern about how we maintain the knowledge base, how we ensure that the science-driven generation of ideas and initiatives is a healthy one and can be sustained.
Of our present budget, 90% is committed to either science R and D or the science-related program initiatives flowing out of it. In terms of balance in resources, that's not bad as a start, but it has to be factored against the significant employee loss in the last while. So I understand your point there.
In terms of reaching out, provinces in many jurisdictions are reducing their environment department capacities as well. I think it will require effective discussion with many of those jurisdictions. How do we share? How do we come together? How do we ensure that we're not engaged in the classic overlap or duplication of effort? We're just going to have to be smarter.
Mr. Adams: One of my concerns, Mr. Glen, is something you said at the end. There's the balancing act between the sort of moral authority that you have by having these professionals, these scientists.... A fair proportion of your workforce are people like that, and you absolutely need them, but in the world in which you are operating now as a small player, you also need, for want of a better word, very political people. It strikes me that many of your staff are very professional, but their interests are in science and the environment, as you would expect.
Some of the other ministries you have been associated with here I think have more people who know how to use the system, know how to manipulate the system, know how to deal with the very political situations in the provinces. How do you feel on that side of things? While you protect this core of scientists and very good people, how do you develop people who are sophisticated in these other things?
Mr. Glen: It's probably a bit of two things. One is selectively drawing out employees from the science end of the organization who have the capacity to articulate and advocate the issues they're working on, and the issues that are part of the agenda, and ensure that they're used effectively to advance those in an advocacy role. The other part is the degree to which you can bring people into the department who may, either from their career backgrounds or a general inclination, have a greater facility for what I would call roughly working the system to try to advance issues. You have to have a marriage of the two.
The worst is when you bring people in to do that and they don't know what they're talking about. I feel that these days as I come in. As I said, you scratch the surface and the issues have answers that are quite deep and profound and are driven by knowledge. You need people to come in who have inquiring minds, an interest in the issues, want to learn the issues well, understand why they're important and therefore what has to be advocated, and join them up with the people who are the scientists, the people who are the creators or generators of that knowledge.
Mr. Adams: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Asselin, do you have any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I don't really have any questions, Madam Chair. As a member of the Official Opposition, I simply want to welcome Mr. Glen as well to the job of Deputy Minister of the Environment. I've seen his resumé and his qualifications are most impressive.
Mr. Glen says he is 50 years old. When I was 10, I thought that 50 was old. Today, now that I'm 46, I think 50 is rather young.
I would like to wish Mr. Glen the best of luck in his new job as Deputy Minister. He appears to be full of energy and anxious to serve the Environment Department well. I think we all stand to win with his appointment. Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mrs. Jennings.
Mrs. Jennings: I too would like to welcome you, Mr. Glen, and congratulate you on your appointment.
.0915
I was interested in a lot of the things you said. I'm glad you explained at the beginning that you have not had experience working in the environment before. I know that will be particularly onerous, as you will have a lot of catching up to do. It's certainly a wide portfolio. I do not see it as being a minor one in any sense. I think you're going to have major commitments here.
You mentioned partnerships and I was happy to hear you say that. I think partnerships are the way we have to go now, especially with the environment.
While I recognize the importance of industry, with our resources one of my main concerns - I'm speaking for myself here - is things like the endangered species movement. How significantly will that play into your overall consideration of partnerships? Do you intend to try to work towards what they hope to be their end result - a certain percentage of areas protected around the world, and endangered spaces and endangered species as well?
As well, is it your intention to continue to work with this group? You mentioned good environmental practices. Does that include holding to task industries that are using resources and perhaps abusing some of those? How seriously are we going to take that? Are we going to be quite strict on it?
Thank you, Mr. Glen.
Mr. Glen: I think you were referring to the coalition.
Mrs. Jennings: Yes.
Mr. Glen: Unfortunately, I was not able to be at a meeting that Mr. Marchi had with them last week. It is a group that I'm told has impressive credentials within its ranks and is genuinely interested in the issues, in advocating effectively for change.
We believe the draft legislation will go a long way to addressing much of what they were advocating for change. It is one of the groups I'd like to meet with and learn more about how it functions.
In terms of the second, I would have to answer personally at this point. I bring no particular bias to the environmental area. I'm quite prepared to hear the different points of view coming into issues, and I would say that to both the industry side and the NGO side.
In terms of pushing industries or working with industries from a partnership point of view, I hope we could continue to push well in the voluntary action programs required and see whether progress can be made. I'm satisfied that a number ofindustries not only have the good will to do it, but have a track record that shows there is movement on that side.
That said, the nature of environmental protection and the way the laws or regulatory authorities are laid out, there will always be an enforcement aspect to it. There will always be parties within industry who won't be as progressive or supportive of what the laws are encouraging or what government programs are encouraging, and to that end enforcement will be part of our agenda. I would see that as a necessary aspect of the work.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Glen.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Congratulations, Mr. Glen.
Minister of the Environment in any sphere can be considered one of the most difficult and complex because of the range of issues it covers, as you rightly pointed out - the mix of international and domestic considerations, the integration of environment into all of the other sectors of government and the economy, and the complexity of the sectors themselves within the ministry.
It strikes me that no ministry has seen so many changes so fast. If we look at the last ten years, the number of ministers, especially before an election, has been staggering. I'm hoping that the present minister stays in his post until the election. At least we'll have two within a four-year mandate, which will be a pretty good record compared to what it was. But it strikes me that within less than three years, we've had three deputy ministers. You're the third. We've had Nick Mulder, Mel Cappe and now you. In every case they've come from other backgrounds where they had to learn new tasks in a very difficult portfolio, and as soon as they start to become proficient they get transferred.
.0920
It seems really counterproductive that people like Mr. Cappe or Nick Mulder spend just enough time to get proficient, and as soon as they become useful they get transferred somewhere else. It's as if the Department of the Environment doesn't count very much.
I'd like to ask a few questions relating to that, because it seems to me that unless there is stability at the top level of management from the side of the public servants, we're going to have a ministry that is always in a state of flux.
First, would it be possible for you, when you meet from time to time with Mrs. Bourgon, to relay the feeling of many people in the environmental field that the ministry is a place - almost like a training ground - where you send people for a while and then they get shifted somewhere else as soon as they know something, and to suggest that the deputy minister, who is a key functionary in the ministry, should stay in a very difficult and complex portfolio?
Second, to follow up on what my colleague, Mr. Adams, was asking you, if you look at the pattern of it relative to other ministries in the same field of endeavour, the same type of mission that the ministry of the environment has, the cutbacks in the ministry have been huge in relative terms. The critical mass has been strongly impaired.
When I look at what has happened to Health Canada over the last few years versus Environment, which has been cut back by 35%, it's been staggering. This has happened because for some strange reason we classify Environment as an economic ministry and Health as a social ministry. Sadly, we have to make these choices because the government runs that way.
If you have to make a choice between the two, do you not think the mission of Environment is much more social than economic? Given the context of today, that would have avoided a lot of cuts. I ask this in the hope that we'll get no more cuts. We have justification for saying enough is enough and that's it now.
I am just giving them to you as they come. All of my questions are interrelated. You mentioned voluntary instruments and industry having a lot of goodwill. That's true for some of them, but we could give you a lot of examples of others who breach voluntary instruments and just duck. I want to know how strongly you feel about the environment and the regulations being closely tied together.
Finally, how do you see the ministry? Do you see it as an advocate for the environment? If so, have you given any thought to what we do with the Canadian Environmental Network, which is a mainstay of the ministry's clientele? As you know, it receives a grant from the ministry of a few hundred thousand dollars. Have you given any thought to carrying this on into the future? What is your view about the subsidy to the CEN?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): That's a long question, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Glen: Mr. Lincoln, it is linked, so I appreciate the series of points you are making.
.0925
In terms of the first one, yes, I will speak to Jocelyne Bourgon and convey the concern.
I think one of the realities - it's not a difficulty - of the senior public service is the degree to which the deputy minister community is part of running the big machine. It's always difficult for the manager of that team to know where the players should be to effectively serve the various institutions. So I can't really comment on whether people have been moved inappropriately, but there's always sensitivity such that you try not to disrupt the good management any more than necessary when you're doing deputy changes.
I'm personally quite delighted that Mr. Cappe was chosen to go where he was, because I think he's an ideal person at this point for the human resources portfolio. I don't plan to come and go quickly; I plan to stay and do a good job.
Mr. Lincoln: I hope so. Thanks.
Mr. Glen: In terms of the cutbacks, I'm a public servant who will address program management as required. If the government's agenda were to deal with cuts, my task is to make the best of it and to ensure that what the department has to use is used well and effectively.
As for the social and economic aspects, I share your concern. I was reflecting while just before arriving in the job, but after being appointed to come. I was trying to think out in my own mind how would I enter Environment Canada in terms of a mindset. I confess that, more from my background, I'll have more of a social policy orientation toward it and an appreciation that the environment is important to Canadians for reasons quite beyond the economic realities of that.
That being said, to advance the environmental issues with a good social purpose and conscience does require you to be dealing with the parties that have to change and be affected. So from that point of view, being located more on the economic side is probably where you should be. It's more what your orientation is in advancing the files. So whether we're on the social or the economic side, the partnerships are struck when necessary. Yes, you clearly will have allies and advocates on the health side of government to assist on a number of the issues.
In terms of no more cuts, okay, I'd like that too. I'd like a stable playing field for a while as we work it through. I can't speak to what the government's broader agenda would be. We're working on the basis that there will be stability for a while now. As I said, we'll try to effectively locate the resources to do the job well.
As for voluntary instruments, I was saying to Ms Jennings as well that, in a fashion, they won't be always be effective in all parties. So to that end, tougher regulatory enforcement is obviously something we'll have to turn to if that's what it takes to move the agenda well.
I'm a believer in effective regulations. I will want to bring this to our own internal assessment of our regulatory regimes. Are they working? Are they effective? I'm not really an advocate of more or less, but rather whether they are effective regulatory measures to do what's required.
In terms of advocacy for the environment, will the people in the department be advocates for good environmental management in the future? Yes. Again, going back to Mr. Adams' concern, you still have to have the science right and use it effectively.
I can't answer about CEN right at the moment. I haven't even had that issue come to me as a concern. I do know they're an effective group and of a similar fashion to some of the industry groups in terms of having coalitions. Some of them coming together is an efficiency and a helpfulness to us. I'll look into that.
We'll be having meetings soon within the department for an accounting of all of the organizations we support through grants or contributions, and in like fashion, all of the international fora we belong to or have membership on, and whether we are getting value for that.
If we are looking at reduced budgets, can we afford to be all over the map, or do we have to be more selective? I would assume that grants to CEN and others would factor into that.
.0930
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle: Thank you, Madam Chair.
To you, Mr. Glen, I also extend my best wishes and congratulations on being appointed to this position. We'll look forward to working with you in the upcoming months.
Playing on age, you're a very young man, since I'm on the other side of 50. I'll look at you as a younger man than myself. Anyhow, perhaps you have more experience than I, but both of us are somewhat similar in terms of our experience with the environment.
I have a number of questions. I have a concern on this committee about the kinds of initiatives we're putting forward as a government under CEPA and all the other matters we're looking at, such as the endangered species act now.
In creating new law, do we have the mechanisms in place, for instance if we do bring about these laws, to make sure that they can be enforced? We're playing on the term ``partnerships'' these days, not only in partnering with our own people in terms of our provinces, but with our American neighbours. Particularly as we look in terms of trying to meet our fiscal constraint goals we have set for ourselves, are we bringing in and effecting laws that can be enforced? You are coming from the justice side and have a background in law. Do we consider properly those kinds of things when we bring in these laws, particularly as we look at the endangered species act? This is something we haven't begun to really discuss.
But as we get into that kind of thing, are we looking at the Temagamis, whereby we're going to have tremendous legal costs and upheaval in local communities? We're not only looking at wildlife, but at flora and fauna and all the other things that go with endangered species.
My concern is that when we do these kinds of things, we should strike a balance so we don't find ourselves continually at war with our neighbours, whether they are our provincial partners or industry partners. We should find some sort of a balance so we can together sit down and perhaps work out some sort of agreements before we enter into areas of law in which we find ourselves with a tremendous cost to the taxpayer, and particularly to business, because we are in a time period when we need to make every dollar count, and we shouldn't be spending it in legal offices.
So my concern is how we can find this kind of balance between doing it right, ensuring for the future a safe and a fair environment, and by the same token, also encouraging a society in which business can foster a good environment.
Mr. Glen: That's a very good question, Mr. Steckle.
The approach that I hope will be taken in the future - in part, it already is part of Environment Canada's way of doing things - is not to focus just on enforcement. As you know, I come from the criminal justice sector. Enforcement is in many ways a measure for when you've failed. Are you dealing with compliance? Are you dealing with education? Are you dealing with the purpose of the law being well understood so that you're into prevention or better practices that would conform with the law so that enforcement's not the issue?
The issue is going to the parties to which the law applies and assume or encourage what most citizens in this country do expect, which is that you be law-abiding. So if the purpose of the law is well articulated and if the measures for compliance are ones you work well with the parties to understand and to then do, then the enforcement end of it should be quite acceptable. It shouldn't be a major part of our agenda.
Mr. Marchi is very keen on the concept of covenants, which means working with industries and communities where there are particular matters that have to be addressed and say that we can come in one way or another. The other way may be that you collectively agree to a covenant or an approach of parties to set goals or targets for change, and do that. That could well be within the laws you're trying to apply, but you're doing it in a more cost-efficient way and also in a way in which people have buy-in.
.0935
I appreciate very much what you're saying, that just using a stick isn't going to change mindsets. So how do you work with industry? How do you work with communities that have environmental concerns to bring about proper resolution?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Congratulations on your appointment, and we certainly look forward to working with you, Mr. Glen.
I have a number of concerns and a couple of questions. You've been talking a lot about partnerships. Partnerships are very important; I agree with you. If we can get people to act at the individual level to respect natural law, environmental law, the way our ecosystems operate, and to understand their role in the effective and healthy operation of our ecosystems, that's the best way. You don't want to spend government resources chasing after people.
But there seems to be a very strong trend of devolution to the provinces in different areas, not just the environment, and of deregulation to industry groups. I have a concern that partnerships, while they may lead to positive things, may also lead to negative things for the environment. So my first question is this: what do you see as the role of the federal government in maintaining a healthy environment in Canada?
Secondly, some people cannot understand that the natural environment contains our life-support system for the planet, and our life-support system is at risk. It's not a matter of making one economic decision over another economic decision. We're talking about decisions that affect the life of humans and non-humans on this planet. The evidence is out there. The time for debate is certainly over. I find it hard to believe that people are still having difficulty choosing the short-term economic gains over longer-term problems. I would like your views on how we can move concerns about the environment on the political agenda. In recent years it has seemed that they are very low on the list.
So the first one is the role you see the federal government having, and the second is how we can move environment up the political agenda.
Mr. Glen: I'll probably be a bit weak on the second part at the moment because of my own learning curve, but I've noted the same thing.
You mentioned devolution and deregulation. The work we are doing on harmonization with the provinces is not devolution. When I use the word ``partnership'' there, it is because we have to work more effectively with jurisdictions to manage the environmental concerns and to reconcile which level of government, depending on the particular interest or issue, is best situated to act. But it's not an initiative in which the federal government is simply saying ``over to you''. It's working smartly with them. I think that in the discussions with provinces that's well understood.
There's no doubt that the federal government - and this isn't stated in any pretentious way - has to take a leadership role, both for the national interest and to ensure that we're well understood as a country in advancing environmental issues internationally. The degree to which we have a capacity to advance issues and encourage change throughout the world in international fora will depend on the degree to which we have effectively engaged with the provinces in partnerships in Canada. We can't be spread thin on both sides. The end result is that you are ineffective in both camps.
.0940
So from that point of view, I think the federal government has to legitimately claim a lead role in the international matters and to be an advocate of change beyond our borders. There's no doubt that in the binational relations on environmental issues Canada has quite an effective past in working on issues with the United States, and we would continue to push that.
I was concerned in early briefings to learn more about the degree to which our Arctic is in essence a waste collecting point for pollutants from not just south of the border or from the southern part of our own country but also from Europe, from Asia. That was new for me to appreciate. Knowing that this concern is there means we have to be active on many fronts to protect our interests.
We also have to recognize that Canada represents, in terms of natural resources, a very significant part of that global ecosystem you're talking about. So good internal management of our own ecosystem advances the global agenda as well.
The getting on with how we ensure environment stays as a top-drawer issue is, I would say, not just advocacy. Probably over the last 10 years we have seen - and certainly some within the department would claim you see it just within the resource base of the department - an up and a down. I don't think that necessarily is reflective of public opinion or interest on environmental issues.
So we'd have to track that and ensure that the public continues to know why it feels the environment is an important issue for it, not just that it feels it's there, but why, what are the issues that move it, and then more critically get on with the doing of it.
In a portfolio in which you have to take the time to advocate certain issues, and the need to address those issues, you also have to get on and start doing it. That's the partnership out to a number of other departments. We don't have the capacity in and of ourselves to effect a lot of the change. We'll have to work with Industry Canada, with Natural Resources, with a number of parties in the doing of it.
I was given a briefing on climate change. I could see, from the briefing I had, the dilemma we face. It's easy to put off for another day some of the doing to try to effect or to stabilize much of what has to be addressed in the climate change agenda. You're talking 60, 70, 80 or 90 years to your impact on the ecosystem, and then you've lost control of it. But you have to start. You have to get on with the doing of it.
So I very much share your anxiety, if I can call it that, around that. I feel anxious myself. There will be pluses and minuses, gains and losses, as you advance, but you have to advance. If it takes public education as an early part, we'll do more of that. If it takes just hard-nosed negotiations with the partners out there to gain commitments to ensure that if it's voluntary, or we need more, whatever, we have to address it. We have to do that. But it's tough to encourage people to address today issues that appear to be tomorrow's issues. They're today's issues, and I understand that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Good. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Thanks very much.
I join with my colleagues in congratulating you on the new assignment.
I just want to try to get a sense of your mind-set, not in terms of any specifics but just a general world view on the urgency of the issue. Currently we spend roughly $10 billion on our defence department. I think we spend about 5% of that on Environment from a federal government point of view, or about $500 million.
Do you think the people of Huntsville or Guelph would see that our military threat is 20 times more significant than our environmental threat, and consequently, is that an appropriate ratio of expenditures?
.0945
Mr. Glen: That's a pretty tough question to answer. I'd rather be accountable for not using effectively the resources given to me in managing this department to advance the agenda. So I'll treat it as apples and oranges. Is the money right, one way or the other? I leave that for other MPs to advocate.
I do know that the Environment Canada budget is not a large one, but that isn't to say it can't be used effectively: one, to maintain science and to ensure we're continuing to generate the knowledge needed to address the issues; and two, to advocate or advance change through programs, change to improve our management of environmental issues.
Mr. Knutson: To me it would be entirely appropriate if the head of the defence staff came forward and said, look, we need more money for arms; we need more money for this, we need more money for that; our armed forces are ill-equipped; we can't send them on peacekeeping missions without this; we need more soldiers. But the sense I get from you is that it's not appropriate for the Deputy Minister for the Environment to say, look, our priorities are really off. We spend $800 million on the CBC. Much as I love the CBC, I'd have to agree that environmental concerns might be a little more important than public broadcasting. Yet our expenditures don't indicate that.
Mr. Glen: Again, it's a question of what you do with the resources you have. A lot of the change, the doing of things, in this area is not just government. A lot of the change has to be effected by industry itself. Do I factor in their budgets, and their environmental budgets, that in some fashion are made available? If I did, I think the amount would improve. Do I involve what provincial governments on the environmental side have? If I did that, the numbers would improve.
There's never enough - I'll claim that - but the task will be to do what I can with what we have to effectively move the agenda. I believe in partnerships, particularly partnerships reaching out to the parties that have to engage in better environmental practices. The multiplier effect is there.
Mr. Knutson: Let me get away from the issue of money for a second. If you were running, say, Ford Motor Company or General Motors, I would expect you to have a pretty solid sense of who are the top car manufacturers in the world and what they do well.
In your briefings, has anybody ever said that this is a California model, or this is what their legislation is, and here's an example of a jurisdiction that's way ahead of Canada in terms of, for example, car emissions or environmental regime, and here is a first-world jurisdiction that is prepared to make significantly deeper trade-offs in terms of protecting the environment than are Canadians? Are you briefed on what other jurisdictions are doing?
Mr. Glen: Not in that big ballpark way. I've had examples put to me on some issues, but nothing that would then have me say here are the top three to go on. I have been encouraged, and feel comfortable in saying, that Canada still is one of the leaders internationally in dealing with environmental issues. So if we're looking at the top three auto makers, we're one of them.
Mr. Knutson: But no one has said here's a jurisdiction we can learn from in a comprehensive way, or here's a community that's prepared to push harder or believes more strongly in environmental protections than we seem to, and here are the examples.
Mr. Glen: Not yet, but you've given me courage. I'll go back and ask, and see. I think by issue, we're probably going to have different answers. I think that's what it's going to be. That's a caution I bring to it. I don't think anyone, including Canada, should say we're in the top three in everything. I think on some of the issues we'll probably find Canada itself might have been there and now has slipped a bit and has to get back. There is some of that. But I'll take that in hand, because it's a good idea.
Mr. Knutson: It seems we always hear how well Canada does internationally. I'm not a scientist, and I'm fairly new to the committee, but my sense is that we talk a good game but don't necessarily follow up, particularly when you factor in the fact that our standard of living is one of the highest, if not the highest, in the world. Consequently, we should be prepared to take the tougher choices and make sacrifices in the short term for long-term gain.
.0950
For example, I don't think it's appropriate for us to expect that people in Taiwan, Hong Kong or Asia will have stricter car emission controls than we do ourselves. Certainly Canadians can't afford it. If we can't do it, we can't expect the rest of the world to do it, given that our GDP as a percentage of per capita is generally higher than the rest of the world.
I'm just talking about.... In terms of where we're failing, we're failing on our commitment to greenhouse gases emission reductions. I get a sense that, sure, when we sit down with the rest of the world we can advocate for a cleaner environment. But isn't the best advocacy really that we clean up our own act first and say we've been able to do it, now you folks in the rest of the world should be able to do it as well?
Do you get any kind of sense that we're failing on that basis?
Mr. Glen: I don't have a good sense yet of where we're slipping. I think the walk, the talk - if you use that expression - is real for us. We have to do more than just talk, and I think there is more than just talk going on.
Mr. Knutson: But you don't have a sense of where we're slipping, to use your words.
Mr. Glen: Not yet, not where I'd want to declare with confidence to it. I am also concerned about the degree to which you've got to encourage more, push more, and yet I guess be effective in working on the economic side with the impact that industries have on generating jobs, maintaining growth. Clearly, we advocate that good environmental practices will generate more jobs, more growth. So we're not a negative. We can be a positive. There have been great strides in that and we have to keep pushing that. But that's obviously one of the push-backs you'll get as you deal with environmental issues, that everything has a cost.
Mr. Knutson: Just as an amateur, it's my sense that there are places where we could regulate the environment or bring in stricter rules, or whatever, that would have a significantly positive environmental effect without costing the federal government a nickel. For example, if we were to come up with stricter emission controls, or whatever, it doesn't necessarily affect the $500 million that we spend from Environment Canada. Do you have a sense of where we can get the greatest amount of environmental gain without costing the federal government any money?
Mr. Glen: Not yet. I don't yet, no.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
Mr. Glen: But that will go, in part, to what I said earlier on effective regulations as well. They don't have to be expensive. Government expenditures don't have to be expensive to Canadians.
Mr. Knutson: I have one last brief question. It's my view that often the environment minister or the environment department is kind of a lone voice for environmental progress and that when it comes to battles within the cabinet or whatever, they're up against Natural Resources, the Department of Industry, perhaps the Department of Agriculture, perhaps the Department of Finance. We often end up in a four against one battle and we lose, on a regular basis we lose. Can you dissuade me of that notion, or give me some reason for optimism?
Mr. Glen: I guess from my recent experience watching environmental issues go through cabinet, I would say they didn't lose and the agenda was advanced. I hate talking in win-lose terms, but there are going to be moments when you wish you had got more than you got as an outcome. But that's a reality in any area of public policy or program development, the balancing of interests to advance an agenda.
The commitment I have, and I certainly see it in Environment Canada employees, is pushing forward, advancing the agenda. On that I'm quite confident.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
Mr. Glen: So I'd be cautious on the win-lose aspect. Keeping a score card like that probably gets in the way of advancing.
.0955
Mr. Knutson: I don't know, but I'll accept your optimism and confidence for today.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We'll wait for another day to prove what you're saying to us, I guess.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: When you have a few more days and weeks and months in the portfolio and get out to visit the regions, I think you'll be very pleased with what you see. There are a lot of very talented, committed people working in Ottawa and a lot of very talented, committed people working in the regions as well.
One of your concerns was about the doing, and I applaud you for the doing because that's what we have to be here for - getting it done.
One thing I've encountered in my experience with Environment Canada, in this lifetime and before I got into politics, is the community watershed action programs, the WAPs, the Fraser River Basin program and the ACAP in Atlantic Canada. These are very effective ways of partnering with different sectors and stakeholders within the community to get things done. I was particularly impressed with the ACAP program in Atlantic Canada. The federal government gives about $50,000 in funding and some of those organizations have been able to lever that money into more than $1 million.
In terms of the federal government's role, we can help provide resource support and act as a catalyst for community action. We can't do it ourselves at the community level, but certainly we can provide the resources and those kinds of things so that community people can do it. That's where we're going to see most of our environmental change, at the community level. That's very important. I know you will enjoy those visits very much.
The other role that I have a great deal of concern about, and you've already spoken about this, is the federal role in science, capacity-building in science and technology. It's very important because it's really only the federal government that will do this on such a wide level. Industry is not going to invest the kind of money needed for proper environmental science research in this country, so it's a very strong role for us.
To respond to a couple of things Mr. Knutson said, I had the opportunity to represent the minister at the APEC ministers of sustainable development meeting in the Philippines. Canada is highly respected and highly regarded within that forum. I also attended the ecological summit in Copenhagen as someone with very wide ears, listening and learning an awful lot. The Canadian delegation, in both its representatives from Environment Canada and other academics and individuals involved in environmental issues in Canada, was one of the largest delegations there, very well represented and highly regarded.
I often feel a lot more positive about what we're doing when I'm out of the country, to be honest. It's important that we keep up those international linkages. We have an awful lot to learn, but we can also share a lot with other countries.
I'm very interested in your previous position with the Privy Council Office. What you've been saying about building partnerships is very important. Building good, effective working relationships is very important. Following up what Mr. Knutson said, often the Minister of the Environment is in a situation around the cabinet table where one would wish that the other colleagues were more allies. Because of the natural tendencies in that portfolio, somehow environment is seen as a bit of a conflict, even though it's not.
I'm wondering if you could tell us a little about what you did in your position as deputy secretary to the PCO, and how you feel those kinds of skills will help you in this new position.
.1000
Mr. Glen: I was responsible for the running of the cabinet committees - the economic committee, the social committee, the special committee that deals with regulations - and all the issues coming through. I supported the committee work when they had a jobs and growth committee. Whatever the committee structures below the cabinet itself, I was responsible for and had working with me a group that in essence managed this agenda.
One of the key things that I and my colleagues were required to do was to ensure a fair and balanced presentation of issues. So when material came in that might well lack sensitivity to other aspects of government agendas, it would be our task to ensure those were brought into the discussions.
What I felt that personally I brought to it was that I was a very good listener, listening not only to what was being advocated but what wasn't being said. Modestly put, I also had a reputation of and was appreciated for bringing disparate groups in and trying to resolve disputes so that issues were presented fairly and parties had a chance to challenge effectively.
So I think I have fairly good people skills, and I think these will now permit me to be effective in this job in advancing environmental issues. On occasion I would have to admonish certain public servants with the following: ``What would you expect a responsible environment minister to advocate on this issue?'' I had to get them to realize exactly what was coming out of Environment Canada was a responsible environmental perspective on the issue.
This is what I expect of myself now in this job. With the support of my staff, I have to be able to reason through what is the responsible position and then advocate it, and advocate it effectively. I guess perhaps this would go back to some of what you were concerned with. Am I going to be pushy enough or demanding enough? Yes, but I'm also going to be responsible about it. You can win sometimes and quite frankly lose, so you still have to be effective in advancing it.
If I could speak very briefly to you, I've been out to only one region so far. As I shared with you yesterday on the phone, I went to Downsview to meet with staff there and particularly with the atmospheric environment service management team located there. I'm going to Halifax this week and am very much looking forward to this. I have been quite impressed by the quality of the staff in your organizations and agree with you.
I've done line jobs before. I did them when I was with immigration, and the real fun can start when you're out dealing with the staff who are distant from Ottawa. Ottawa sometimes tends to skew one's appreciation of the real world and what's going on.
On the science building, we use the expression that some of the things out there need leveraging. I really should have used this term when I was answering you earlier. Much of what we can effectively do with our budget, in the program capacity we have, is to leverage beyond. That is part of the partnership and you do get a multiplier effect.
On the science building I am encouraging further thought as to how we can engage with universities and other levels of government on research and development. And I wouldn't rule out industry on this. I recognize they may have a particular orientation to their research. Obviously it is focused on their product lines and defending the interests of those product lines. That being said, at a certain base of science study and research they should be factored in and we would work there as well.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Glen. Obviously it's a very challenging job you have ahead of you.
I just want to mention briefly with regard to education of industry that I spent some time this summer with one of the oil industries in Alberta. I was amazed to hear their comments and how far they have come in their concern about the environment. In fact, some of the things they are doing go way beyond regulation insofar as government is concerned.
.1005
So I think your comments with regard to education and finding ways of bringing industry into this, to have them realize just how important the environment is and to raise that profile with them, is important. I think they are open to that and I hope you continue with that role.
I was also glad to hear you say that you'll be going into the regions. Ms Kraft Sloan mentioned ACAP. I think it's one of the very important organizations that we should foster and keep on side and make sure they have the tools with which to work.
Mr. Glen: I've been told that by Garth Bangay as well.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. I'm sure you'll be coming before the committee again within the not too distant future. We look forward to your comments and ask you to accept our best wishes in your new job.
Mr. Glen: Thank you very much. Thank all of you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I guess I will bang the gavel and adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Knutson: Would it be appropriate for us to approve this appointment?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): There is no quorum.
The meeting is adjourned.