ARCHIVED - Industry Canada

• The government responded to all 22 recommendations in the INDU report, covering taxation, energy, labour, trade, intellectual property rights protection and regulatory, infrastructure, research, development and commercialization policies. The response highlighted measures in Advantage Canada and Budget 2007, including an accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in new machinery and equipment, initiatives to cut red tape, investments in critical infrastructure and efforts to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible labour force in the world.
• Industry Canada prepared the Government Response to the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Counterfeiting and Piracy are Theft. The government's response was tabled in Parliament on October 17, 2007.
• Government response to the Standing Committee report on a free trade agreement with the Republic of South Korea. The report addressed the implications and potential impacts on Canada of a free trade agreement with South Korea. The report addresses sectors of the economy that are under the responsibility of Industry Canada, e.g., automotive sector. The government's response has not yet been released.

The Office of Consumer Affairs represented the Consumer Measures Committee (a federal/provincial/territorial committee of consumer protection officials) before the House Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in May 2007 to discuss federal and provincial initiatives to prevent and combat identity theft.

In June 2006, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry were authorized to research and report on rural poverty in Canada. FedNor made a presentation to the Committee on this subject in May 2007.

Petitions
The environmental petitions process is a formal way for Canadians to bring concerns about the environment and sustainable development to the attention of federal ministers and obtain a timely response. The petitions process was created as a result of a 1995 amendment to the Auditor General Act. On behalf of the Auditor General of Canada, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development manages the petitions process and monitors responses to ensure that relevant questions and issues raised by Canadians receive a response from federal ministers.

Petition responses by Industry Canada (2007–08)
No. 184 – Determining Dangerous Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration (response April 16, 2007)
No. 186 – Options to the Practice of Burning of Flax Straw on the Canadian Prairies (response April 13, 2007)
No. 189 – Protecting Canadian Drinking Water (response May 10, 2007)
No. 197 – Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation (response August 14, 2007)
No. 200 – Promotion of Sustainable Forest Industry through Competition Policy Reform (response September 14, 2007)
No. 205 – Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts of Biofuel Production in Canada (response September 27, 2007)
No. 208 – Impacts of Cellular Phone Towers and Antennas (response October 12, 2007)
No. 223 – Green Procurement of Paper for both Publications and Internal Use by Federal Government Departments (response March 29, 2008)

Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS)
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) conducted an extensive audit of departmental SDSs, with a particular focus on 10 departments, including Industry Canada. He tabled his report in October 2007. The Commissioner found that the SDSs are not realizing their potential to integrate sustainable development (SD) thinking into the way departments define their business and make decisions. The CESD found systemic weaknesses in the governance, authority, accountability and direction of SDSs, and believes that this is indicative of higher level problems that must be addressed at a government-wide level. He considers that departments had not analyzed and considered the environmental, social and economic consequences of their current or proposed policies, programs or activities when developing their SDSs. He is concerned that senior managers across government viewed the SDSs as a compliance exercise rather than a change management initiative.

Although Industry Canada received satisfactory ratings on four of five criteria, the Department’s SDS IV was not considered to be a substantive plan by the CESD. The Department received an unsatisfactory assessment because its targets were not considered to be adequately specific, measurable and time bound, and they were not published in the SDS IV. The Department provided evidence on how it is making progress on the quality of its targets, including by providing training to staff on how to set targets better. The Computers for Schools program was examined and its progress was found to be satisfactory.

Many of the recommendations in the report are directed at issues that must be dealt with at a government-wide level, rather than by Industry Canada specifically. Accordingly, the Department has not prepared a formal response to the CESD audit, but is working with other government departments in a review and overhaul of the current approach to SD Strategies in the federal government. It is expected that a new approach to undertaking SD Strategies will be in place by the tabling of SDS V, expected in December 2009.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
The CESD conducted an extensive audit of departmental implementation of the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), with a particular focus on 12 departments, including Industry Canada. The report, which was tabled in February 2008, found:

• There are weaknesses in accountability and transparency.
• There is no mechanism to hold departments to account if they do not complete an SEA.
• Most departments are not preparing public statements on their detailed SEAs, and when they are published they are difficult to find and do not contain sufficient information to assure stakeholders that environmental factors have been integrated in the decision-making process.
• There are deficiencies in completing and tracking SEAs, as there is a less than 50 percent completion rate of the required SEAs across government.
• There is a lack of consistency in most management systems.

On a positive note, the Commissioner found that training and guidance have increased.

In terms of moving forward, the Commissioner noted that senior management support and a well-functioning management system is essential for making progress on SEA. CESD also considers that the government-wide SEA evaluation, to be completed by December 2008, is important to guide the future course of SEA within the federal government.

While Industry Canada is not one of the organizations directly noted in the chapter, the Department had already addressed many of the issues that CESD raised in his report. As of April 1, 2007, Industry Canada became fully transparent in the manner in which it manages public statements on SEAs. The Department made its full SEA website publicly accessible and has a dedicated part of the site devoted to publishing public statements on detailed SEAs. This site is also linked to the website of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). The Department was the fifth government department to become fully accessible and transparent with respect to SEAs, but has not yet had occasion to publish a public statement on a detailed SEA. In September 2007, approval was given by the Directors General Policy Committee (DGPC) to modify Industry Canada’s management system for SEAs in order to centralize and improve tracking, monitoring and quality assurance. In October 2007, the Department launched a newly updated SEA training course. With the support of CEAA, the course was given to 20 Industry Canada employees.