Environment Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, of course.

We do not, as I mentioned earlier, actually conduct effectiveness studies ourselves. In our mandate it's very clear that we can look to see whether departments have measured the effectiveness of the programs. And the only way you can really measure effectiveness is if you have set established objectives at the beginning.

We often—I would say in the vast majority of our reports—report on whether there have been reviews of effectiveness: does government know whether the program is being effective; is there information in place; and are the objectives of the program clear at the beginning of the program?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Now we go to Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Typically, when you bring out an auditor's report, some length of time beforehand you advise the government; the government sees a copy of the report.

In the announcement you came to us with yesterday, was the same procedure used?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. You were the first to see the announcement.

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

There's a distressing thing. Why...?

You've clearly indicated, along the lines of questioning about whether Madame Gélinas was dismissed or chose to leave, that you can't answer that. Can I ask why not?

[Sheila Fraser]

It's because of privacy issues, and as I am sure you can imagine, there are now lawyers involved in this file, and discussions continue.

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

Okay.

One of the critiques or concerns you've raised is the implementation.

I would clearly, particularly as an opposition member, put much of the fault for that with the government of the day. They make a commitment; you audit that commitment and find it lacking—as Ms. Gélinas did on numerous occasions—and the government doesn't act upon your recommendations; it essentially goes against the auditor's word.

It's something—for me, anyway, in the private sector—I'd never encountered before I came to Parliament: that the auditor's comments were just refused outright by departments, or ignored, or delayed over time.

We have to take a look at the climate change file in particular. I can remember—and I have the reports here—recommendations, and then recommendations, and things getting continually worse.

One of the concerns you raised was around that implementation. I would find a great deal more fault with the government of the day and the current government than with Madame Gélinas or her office for recommending it. That's where it lies.

But the critique you raised—and this is what I want to get to—is that there's a visibility question. I'm confused by that, because particularly over the last six to twelve months the Commissioner of the Environment's report has received a great deal of attention and notice. It's certainly driven much of what this committee has been up to.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, but let me add, Chair, that we began this review and began the discussion about the reporting strategy and actually looked at all of this close to a year ago now. At that point the reports were not getting the same kind of visibility as the last one has, and I take that.

On the question of recommendations, you were right that it is beyond our control. We cannot force government to act on recommendations, but it is a measure of our effectiveness nonetheless. So we have to look at whether there are things we can do differently or that we can have the system do differently to try to make those recommendations.

The recommendations are valuable ones. They are not done lightly, and they are things that we believe should change.

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

I want to go to this....

And I believe they should change, too. Many Canadians join your concerns.

But the advisory committee that established.... Remind me of the numbers again—15 or 20...?

[Sheila Fraser]

It's probably 10 to 15 people on each.

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

These are wise minds when it comes to the environment—and other issues.

[Sheila Fraser]

And other issues.

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

You met with this committee.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, we meet regularly. There are two committees. These are committees that have been in place in the office for.... What we call the panel of senior advisers has been around for more than 10 years, probably 15 years.

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

When was the last time you met with them?

[Sheila Fraser]

I met with them about a week ago.

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

And was the topic of Ms. Gélinas' performance part of that discussion?

[Sheila Fraser]

Not the performance, no, because that is an internal matter, but the whole question about the review of our practice—whether we should bring this question of a perceived gap in expectations to parliamentarians—all of that was discussed with the panel.

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

The advisory panel's opinion of Ms. Gélinas, I assume, is very high?

[Sheila Fraser]

It is very high.

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

Is it possible a mistake was made yesterday?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I believe I did the best thing for the Office of the Auditor General and for the office of the commissioner.

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

The question of effectiveness is important for us here. When you bring recommendations forward....

I heard something you strayed into earlier, that the Office of the Auditor General should never comment on policy or make those policy recommendations—in a sense offering some policy recommendation yourself.

Perhaps there is a role, and a role not traditionally held by auditors' offices, that can be put forward.... When I look at Madame Gélinas' last report, I think it's quite clear in saying that, looking at the plans of the government, there needs to be more. That, under some strict auditor's interpretation, would be suggesting that the policies put forward are not enough to meet Canada's commitments. That seemed appropriate to me. It was appropriate to you.

Again, I go back to this question of the line that, under strict auditor's guidelines—very traditional—would have been crossed over. The role of the auditor of the environment seems to be one that is so broad-sweeping that comments like that become something appropriate in this context but would not pass the test in traditional standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Respond very briefly, Ms. Fraser, please. We're over time.

[Sheila Fraser]

We felt those comments were appropriate within the mandate and our interpretation of the role of the Office of the Auditor General, because the reports of the commissioner are released on behalf of the Auditor General. I have to be comfortable with everything that is said, and I was comfortable.

It is a broader issue whether, quite frankly, we are straying very close to that line sometimes. Probably we do, and at times when you see that a policy is being implemented very badly, it can call into question the policy. We try very studiously to say that it's not a question of the policy but a question of the implementation and the management.

The issue I'm bringing forward today is, I believe, of importance to us, because if that expectation continues, quite frankly, I believe it could at some point damage the Office of the Auditor General.