Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

[Pursuant to a decision of the committee, the following in camera evidence has been made public]

I'd like to start off by welcoming the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. I think everybody is very familiar with Ms. Fraser.

As I think we've discussed with each member--just about, I think--she has asked for an in camera meeting for the beginning, at least, of this first meeting back.

I wish everybody Happy New Year, officially, and we'll carry on.

I would ask Ms. Fraser to make her statement in whatever time it takes, and then we'll go to questions from members.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Ms. Fraser.

There were some off-line discussions going on, and I'd just like to get a better understanding, Mr. Chair, if we could. I was just accosted by four media people outside the room who want to get a better sense of why this meeting would be held in camera. As a parliamentarian, I have to say at face value, prima facie, it's very difficult to understand why we would hold an in camera meeting with, of all positions in the Government of Canada, the Auditor General, when this is a room that is laced with cameras and microphones, in the Centre Block, in the heart of our democracy.

So perhaps, if we might, Mr. Chair, before we go any further in camera, certainly—and maybe other parliamentarians might want to contribute to this—it would be important to get a sense of why this meeting would be held in camera. For example, if it's a personnel issue, I don't recall ever being engaged, in my short parliamentary career, on personnel matters, even though the Auditor General reports directly to Parliament. As a former GIC who was a deputy minister equivalent, who ran a crown corporation, I couldn't have imagined coming to this committee and asking to speak in camera about personnel or structural issues in my organization. I'm not sure why we would do it.

So I guess what I'm putting here, before we go any further, is to get a better sense amongst ourselves as parliamentarians of where we're going, before we open the discussion, if that works for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Certainly. I have discussed this with Ms. Fraser and we met prior to this meeting. Understand that there are really several things that need to be discussed. Of course, Mr. Godfrey did ask that we invite the Auditor General to come to speak about the reporting process. But I think the statement you're going to hear right now does deserve to be dealt with in camera, and that's basically what I felt and agreed with Ms. Fraser on--by her making this statement. Certainly to broaden this, which I agree should be public and public information, I believe she can be invited back and we can carry through with what Mr. Godfrey has said.

Obviously this meeting has been set up in camera. The TV cameras are not turned on, and it would take some time to reverse that decision. She has convinced me that she can only make the statement that she wants to make in camera, and from there, of course, the other parts of what we want to ask can certainly be public.

I think we should listen to her make her statement, and then we can make a decision about how much further we want to go, Mr. McGuinty. I believe that's fair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Would it be possible to hear from other members of the committee to get a sense of...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I do apologize, Ms. Fraser. I'm not trying to be obstructionist or to delay. It's just that I'll be asked about this by my kids tonight and I want to be able to defend....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think Mr. Regan is next, and then Mr. Warawa and Mr. Vellacott.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I think the difficulty is that when Mr. Godfrey asked to speak about the reporting process, that's not a private matter. That is a matter, obviously, of public policy, in which the public have an interest and a right to be informed, to be aware of what the discussion is. If there are personnel matters internal to the Office of the Auditor General, I don't see how that should determine how the reporting function occurs.

The point is that if it is felt by Parliament that it makes sense to have annually a separate report of the environment commissioner to highlight environmental issues, rather than roll them into the quarterly reports of the Auditor General, in which they might get lost or might at least not get the same level of attention they'd get as a separate matter, that's not a question of personnel; it is a separate matter. I don't see how the two can possibly be linked, and that's my difficulty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe what we are receiving this morning in camera is a courtesy for us to be better informed as members of the environment committee who care about the environment and want to do what's best for the environment. I believe the message we're getting today is a heads-up for us. Obviously, the issues you raise are additional and public, and obviously reporting can be discussed, as Mr. Godfrey requested. That's another issue. Let's not mix the two today, or at least at the beginning let's not mix that.

We're talking about something that's a heads-up to us as a committee, which will help us do our job better. If we look at it that way, it's to our advantage.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I discussed this with you yesterday, my understanding was that you had notified me and the critics of all parties--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras was the only one I didn't get to yesterday.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay--notifying them that the Auditor General had requested this meeting be held in camera. I initially expressed the same kinds of concerns to you when I was told it was an in camera meeting with the Auditor General, but then when I heard it was at her request.... My background is 14 years in local government on the front lines, and there is a session that's in camera, but the vast majority of the meetings should always be public meetings.

I respect the request of the Auditor General. She has asked that it be in camera and I will respect that. My understanding was that you asked for feedback, and you did not receive feedback in the negative from any of the critics, so I'm surprised we're debating it now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I, too, want to get on the record that I'm not particularly a fan of in camera meetings, and over the years you will track my statements in committees and so on with respect to that. I take a view today, though, insofar as it is the Auditor General who has initiated and made the request for the in camera meeting...I defer in respect of her office. I can accept that.

My question is, how are we proceeding? You seemed to imply that we'll hear her make a statement first and then make a decision whether retroactively it was in camera. I'm a little confused. I would want to know in advance of her starting whether this whole meeting is in camera or whether we are doing just the first segment and then we're going to get into some other more public, reportable issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The Auditor General is going to make a statement for us, and then as far as the other issues Mr. Regan raised about the reporting process and so on, that can be dealt with at a later date in more detail.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

That would be in another meeting altogether then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, and that, of course, would not be in camera.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

If I understand, if we're in agreement, this entire meeting would be in camera and we're not segmenting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, Mr. Vellacott, the initial portion needs to be in camera because of the nature of what we're going to hear, which, as I said, is a heads-up to us.

The rest of the meeting about this same subject, about reporting, obviously the public has every right to know about. I'm not a fan of in camera meetings either and have opposed them in many cases. I felt that, having listened to the Auditor General on what she wants to tell us, it has to be in camera or it can't be said. It's a heads-up as to what's happening in the future.

We have mixed the issues a bit, and that could be my fault for not better clarifying what this is about, but you will be very clear when you hear what the Auditor General has to say, if it's in camera.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, you'll understand that just like my colleagues, I have a preference for listening to all witnesses in public, including the Auditor General. Basically, we're just trying to understand why the meeting needs to be in camera. Quite frankly, with the information I have at my disposal, I am having a really hard time understanding why we would need to hold an in camera meeting. We mustn't forget that we live in a world where perceptions are key. There are journalists outside, and we will undoubtedly be called to task if this meeting is held in camera. We need to be aware of that, and the Auditor General must also bear it in mind and consider, in particular, the way her remarks may be interpreted. I'm going to respect the Auditor General's decision on this. If she considers that what she has to say should be said in camera, I will respect her wishes. However, I want to make sure I understand. If we decide to sit in camera, we need to make sure the questions we are asked outside aren't misinterpreted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Ms. Fraser.

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, I would perhaps have to clarify that the only reason I asked to meet the committee is that I would like to inform you of an announcement that we will be making later this afternoon. It is simply a matter of courtesy. It has absolutely nothing to do with reporting strategy. If members are uncomfortable with that, we would be glad to send you a copy of the announcement as it is released. But given the importance of this committee to us and that we work for you, we would like to inform you in advance. There is absolutely nothing more to it than that. It is information that I would be very uncomfortable sharing with you publicly, but it will be public this afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the Auditor General, that's helpful, I think. Obviously, we all have similar concerns about accountability, you probably most of all.

The comments the Auditor General just made are reassuring, that this is a courtesy call and a heads-up on something that's going to be delivered this afternoon. I think we may be whipping ourselves up a little bit here in terms of what we're hearing. If we're getting some state secrets that we then have to take with us to our graves, that's certainly different from what was just said. But it bears in mind for all of us--and I think it's good that the committee members have said it--that when dealing with public matters we always seek the highest disclosure possible.

With that, I think we should proceed with the announcement. I don't think it implicates any of us in regard to what we're trying to do as committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

That was my feeling from the beginning.

Mr. Harvey.