Environment Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

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

Was it a report of one of the advisory panels that led you to make a suggestion on that subject to the committee? Perhaps the committee could be asked to consider this issue of activism or the cause that a commissioner is bound to defend.

[Sheila Fraser]

Indeed, our advisors, especially former parliamentarians, have told us that this was a question that, in their view, deserves to be raised with the committee so that it can say whether or not it is an issue that should be considered.

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

Was that a unanimous report? Was there a consensus? Was there unanimity on this opinion of one of the advisory panels?

[Sheila Fraser]

We don't proceed by votes, but I would say that most of them were indeed of the view that this was an issue that we should raise in committee.

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

So you agreed with that opinion of the committee? If you're making the suggestion to the committee—

[Sheila Fraser]

I agreed to raise the issue in committee. Obviously, I'm not recommending that you do it, but I agree that it should be raised in committee.

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

How many commissioners of the environment have there been since that position was created?

[Sheila Fraser]

There have been two full-time and one acting.

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

Ms. Gélinas occupied the position for how long?

[Sheila Fraser]

For a little more than six years, approximately six and a half years.

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

Did the advisory panel's report concern the last six years?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'd say that it went even further. This didn't concern one commissioner in particular, but a number of people go back to the report the committee prepared at the time when it was recommended that there be an independent commissioner, and they would still like that to happen. So there's been a change. I think expectations were perhaps created 12 years ago and that some would like to see them realized.

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

Are the minutes of those meetings or that report public?

[Sheila Fraser]

No.

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

Can it be made public under the act?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. It is an advisory committee that reports to me and to the Commissioner. We aren't currently subject to the Access to Information Act. We will be, but a lot of audit-specific subjects would be excluded. So this is private advice.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today. I know it's a difficult set of circumstances.

As I listened to some of the questioning that has taken place earlier today, I have had some concerns about the great reputation that the Office of the Auditor General has right now. I'm going to try to point these out, and this is probably going to take me a few minutes. I might only get one question in here.

I heard Mr. Cullen, when he was speaking earlier about Ms. Gélinas leaving in her role as commissioner, say, “We lost an advocate.”

The brief you gave here says:

Comments by some environmentalists and more recently the introduction of Bill C-288 showed that there may be a gap between what is expected from the Commissioner and what the legislation states.

It goes on: “...would have required us”—that is, the Auditor General's Office—“to act as a policy advisor to the government of the day and to evaluate programs”.

I'm very concerned about that. As a parliamentarian, it's my job to advocate policy. It sounds as though, through Bill C-288 and everybody who's agreed with it, they would like to abdicate that responsibility as parliamentarians and place it squarely on the shoulders of either the Office of the Auditor General or an independent officer of some other branch of the Auditor General.

To me, that's quite alarming, because I can see that what's going to happen is that as soon as the policy doesn't work, they can shift the blame. The blame can be shifted away from bad policy squarely onto the shoulders of somebody else. It's always nice to have a scapegoat when your ideas don't work. I'm really concerned, because, quite frankly, I like the idea of somebody monitoring what government does. It's just a good idea to have an independent party clearly look at and assess how the government is doing in implementing policy—period.

It's the implementation of the policy that the Auditor General's Office should be responsible for—and this is my opinion—strictly. I wonder, are you not concerned about the risk of exposing the Office of the Auditor to the subjectivity of a conflict of interest between assessing policy and assessing the outcomes of how government implements programs?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me just talk a minute about the word “advocacy”. The Office of the Auditor General and the commissioner are advocates. We are advocates for responsible spending, we are advocates for open and transparent contracting processes, and we are advocates for good environmental management practices.

We cannot be advocates for a particular policy or be seen to represent a particular interest or group. That is why, as was said very correctly, we cannot audit policies; we can audit implementation of policies. We can see your policies being implemented in the way Parliament had intended; we cannot get into the discussion about the policy or comment on the policy, but we can see whether the policy is being implemented according to either good management practices or as Parliament has established it. Obviously, that is our mandate.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Well, I'm glad to hear it, because that's the way I'd like it to stay. Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

I have another question, from paragraph 7:

We attempt to measure our effectiveness in a number of ways—by surveys of MPs, and by several performance indicators.

Could you enlighten me as to what those performance indicators are?

[Sheila Fraser]

We use indicators such as the number of reports that have been subject to parliamentary hearings, which gives us an indication of usefulness. We will look for other work: the number of times our recommendations have been endorsed by a parliamentary committee; we look, obviously, at operational indicators, such as timeliness; we also do surveys of departments to see whether the reports are useful to them. We have sometimes to take those responses with a certain analysis. So we have a number of surveys that we do, and one of the major indicators of performance, which many audit offices around the world use, is implementation of recommendations.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, thank you.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have a little less than one minute.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

In the time I spent in municipal politics I was very frustrated in the ability to gauge whether something we had done or a decision we had made had been effective or not. It was usually because there were not clear guidelines or clear benchmarks set, as far as achieving goals or outcomes was concerned. You have to set a goal and a target in order to reach it.

When your office is performing audits and you come across implementation ideas and there weren't clearly delineated targets or goals, how does your office go about assessing whether or not an implementation was successful if you don't have that kind of clarity? And do you comment on whether or not a plan was clear enough to begin with?