Environment Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

We believe that the nomination of an interim commissioner is a time to reflect upon how we can improve that practice, if we can, before we go ahead with the search for a new commissioner. That is why I brought the review forward here; otherwise, there would be an expectation, quite frankly, that we would begin a search process right away.

I would like to take the time, before just automatically going out, to say that the commissioner's office and that part of our mandate has been in place now for 12 years. I think it's time to take a look at it and to really focus on what qualifications are needed for the next commissioner. As part of that review—and we've already begun some very initial consultation—the issue around policy advocacy and advice to government is coming up.

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

Yes. I have two last thoughts, in the time left.

Mr. McGuinty today brought a motion forward. The original intent, it seemed, when the former Liberal government made this commitment, was to have an independent commissioner, one who reported directly and was removed. We'll be making suggestions to bring that right into the review process of Bill C-30, the government's bill. We think this is potentially an effective tool.

I know you can't comment on that, it being policy. My question is this. Looking at some of the comments your organization, the Auditor General's office, made about the employment insurance account—that government is consistently taking too much in—I'll quote:

[To allow] the Account to accumulate a surplus beyond what could reasonably be spent for employment insurance purposes, given the existing benefit structure and allowing.... In our opinion, the government has not observed the intent of the Employment Insurance Act.

Where's the line? Where is the line between commenting on ineffective government spending, or promises made and not kept, and advocating for policy options, which in Ms. Gélinas' last report she commented on, saying on climate change that the government had not taken it seriously enough yet and needed to ramp it up? Where is that line?

[Sheila Fraser]

If we use the employment insurance account as an example, there was at the time we made those comments a clear definition in the act as to how the rate was to be set. The way the surpluses were accumulating, we believe, was not in compliance with that legislation. We did not say you have to change the legislation, or you have to do this. We are simply stating a fact: that the legislation says it should be established this way and we do not believe you are establishing it according to legislation.

In fact, to complete this point on the Employment Insurance Act, what subsequently happened was that the legislation was changed. The surpluses are still continuing to grow, but we are no longer justified to make any comment, because the legislation has changed and Parliament has agreed that the rate can be set in another way. That's fine.

On climate change, government has an international obligation, and we are perfectly entitled to ask if government is respecting that obligation—

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

And if they are not, to say that.

[Sheila Fraser]

—and if they are not, to report so.

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

When Madame Gélinas said this government is not respecting that and not doing enough—

[Sheila Fraser]

That is a perfectly legitimate role for the commissioner, within the Office of the Auditor General.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

We'll now go to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Auditor General.

The government respects the autonomy of your office of Auditor General, so I will not be asking any questions regarding Ms. Gélinas. I will comment, though, that we appreciate the work of your office, and yourself particularly, and the work that Madame Gélinas did while she was working within your office. As you said, she's still within your office.

My questions relate to your comments on reporting. You're going to be looking for input from each of us around this table.

In your comments made yesterday, you said that as you assess the effectiveness of the government, you're looking at how many of our recommendations were implemented. In the report we received last fall, there was a critique of different departments not working together. It appeared that one department didn't even know what the other was doing and that the recommendations were not being acted on. It was a challenge for the new government to try to make sure that issue was solved, so that we could move forward on environmental issues, which are very important to the government.

If what is being discussed and will be discussed is, as was said, the possible creation of an office of the Commissioner of the Environment separate from your office.... At this time we have one body doing the audit of all different departments within government. These are not questions on policy, but I'm wondering, if you can comment, whether you think it would be more effective for your office to audit all of the offices of government or more effective to have an individual office of the Commissioner of the Environment. Which would be more effective?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me make a very short comment on the first part, about implementation of recommendations. One of the things we do in the office is what we call follow-up audits, where we go back and actually assess whether government is making satisfactory progress on addressing issues we've raised in previous audits. We call them status reports. Our report of February 2008 will be devoted strictly to environmental and sustainable development issues. I think we have nine or ten audits coming in that area, on everything from pesticides to...a whole range of them. We will be assessing whether government has made satisfactory progress or not in dealing with the recommendations that were made in audits going back sometimes several years.

The question of creating an independent commissioner is of course a decision for Parliament. I would just say that the audit function has to remain separate from the policy advice evaluation of programs. Those two functions are really inconsistent. In order to have an effective audit function, you must be independent from, if you will, the management and the establishment. If you're involved in establishing policy, you cannot then audit it objectively.

We believe that the audit function we've carried out in the office through the commissioner to date has been very valuable and very good. There is, though, an expectation that we can do policy advice evaluations of the effectiveness of programs. That is work that we cannot do, that is inconsistent, and that could actually damage our office if we were to go into that kind of work.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Then, as you made comment on Bill C-288, Bill C-288 is asking for a new position of Commissioner of the Environment to do both policy and audits.

[Sheila Fraser]

The initial draft of the bill would have had us, the Office of the Auditor General, conducting both of those functions. That is why we came back to the committee to say that this was an issue for us and it would be a problem for us. We have worked with the member to modify the bill so that policy advice and evaluation would no longer be done by the Office of the Auditor General and the commissioner.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have one last question, and then, if I have any time remaining, I will share it with Mr. Harvey.

Are you aware of any member—and this is regarding what has happened, your visit yesterday—of this committee breaching the contents of the in camera portion of the meeting and revealing information that you had shared in confidence?

[Sheila Fraser]

Based on The Globe and Mail reports at 12:59, I would have to answer yes, but I can only surmise from newspaper articles and certain information that is attributed to certain members of the committee. But those are also available to the chair and to others, so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to get into that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Right, and you made your announcement at three o'clock?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is correct.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, you have four minutes left.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I understand that the mandates of the Auditor General and the Commissioner are not to assess whether a program is good or not, but rather to determine whether it has been well administered. Is that correct?

[Sheila Fraser]

Essentially, yes. We can't do program evaluation. The act states very clearly that we can audit whether departments and agencies have put measures in place to conduct evaluations, but we don't conduct the program evaluations. We examine the systems, management methods, to determine whether the government is acting as it has undertaken to do.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Ultimately, that's the value of the watchdog, of the Auditor General. He must ensure that the government does what it says it was going to do.

[Sheila Fraser]

And that it does it in an efficient, effective and economic manner, and in accordance with the laws, of course.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

So what would be the mandate of a Commissioner of the Environment?

[Sheila Fraser]

Obviously, the Commissioner's mandate will depend on what Parliament tells the Commissioner to do.

The Commissioner's present role is more like that of the Auditor General. Ultimately, the Commissioner must comply with certain provisions of the act, but the other duties, as well as the audits that the Commissioner tables in Parliament, depend on the mandate given to the Auditor General.

If another agency or independent entity were created, that would concern more questions of advice on policy and program evaluation, things that we cannot do.