Evidence of meeting #40 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was general.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I call the meeting to order.

Members of the committee, the intention today was to look at Mr. McGuinty's motion and then to go in camera. We would then look at the CEPA report and begin our review of it.

Mr. McGuinty, do you think the Auditor General's letter, which all of us just received minutes ago, would be any reason we might want to postpone discussion?

What does the committee think about postponing discussion of this motion until our next meeting on Thursday? Is there any interest in that? What is the feeling of the group?

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

First, it's an interesting letter. It states the auditors can't comment on policy. It's a comment on policy almost in the body of the letter itself. I'm not perturbed about the idea of considering this motion today.

I am going to suggest that we take some witnesses on it—obviously not today, but as soon as we can arrange it. While I'm in favour of the principle of what's being suggested, I think it would be worthwhile to hear at least a little bit of pro and con as to how we could strengthen this office, because the intention behind this work is to do that—to increase its independence, and those types of things.

The letter, to me, feels like an aside. If Ms. Fraser wants to come before the committee to comment on these specific things, that could be encouraged, but I don't think today I am prepared to vote on it until we've heard at least some testimony for and against.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Cullen, that's my feeling as well. The last paragraph speaks in terms of dedicated environment audit professionals, etc., and immediately that raises a question to me of what that means in terms of staff and additional bureaucracy to make it happen. Obviously, your suggestion of witnesses would maybe answer some of those questions.

I was in the process of asking Mr. McGuinty that question, but now I may as well ask it publicly. It would seem to me that there may be some implication there in terms of cost, bureaucracy, and so on, so I appreciate your suggestion.

Go ahead, Mr. Harvey.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

In fact, the letter sent by the Auditor General comes very close to my perception of the office of Commissioner of the Environment.

The motion calls for a separate budget. The office already has a separate budget and operates independently. We have no say in what the Commissioner does.

As for her comments—

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

We're not doing Mr. McGuinty's motion. I am just asking if anyone has any comments on postponing this matter until Thursday, Mr. Harvey. We will get to the motion once Mr. McGuinty tables it.

Are there any other comments about that? Is the general feeling that we should carry on and hear the motion today? Is that what I'm hearing?

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

This is just a technical point, Mr. Chair. Hearing the motion today does not require a vote on it today. Getting some witnesses together, or whatever the committee deems proper—

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I think the committee can make those recommendations at the end, and then we'll go ahead as proposed.

I just basically wondered about this letter and the time to get witness lists, and so on.

Are there any other comments on that issue specifically?

Mr. Calkins has a comment.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

I would concur with you, Mr. Chair. It would be prudent, given the letter that we received from the Auditor General and some of the issues pertaining to the motion. I would appreciate an opportunity to have some witnesses come to talk about this motion.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

The question is whether we will deal with the motion now—have it tabled and then go to the next step—or hold off so that everybody can get their ducks in a row for Thursday. Should we put the motion?

We would need the suggestions for witnesses immediately. If you have some ideas on that, it would be very helpful for our clerk if you could get those in by the end of this meeting. That's why I suggested a possible delay, but if we can accomplish that, let's do it; let's get on with it.

Go ahead, Mr. McGuinty.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for participating in what will be a debate here.

Before we go any further, Mr. Chair, I'd like to add a sixth bullet point in English and in French to the motion itself. The sixth bullet point would read as follows:

That the committee adopt these recommendations as a report to the House and that the chair present this report to the House.

I wanted to include this before putting the motion formally, as part of the motion I'm about to put to the committee.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Could you read that again, please?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

It is:

That the committee adopt these recommendations as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I think this is a kind of boilerplate we've done before in many of these things.

Now do you want to put your motion?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

I'd like to. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move the following motion:

That this committee call upon the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development by:

—making the commissioner a full and independent agent of Parliament, to be called “Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development”, reporting to Parliament directly through the Speakers of both the House of Commons and the Senate;

—by clearly affirming and appropriately circumscribing the duty of the Office of the Commissioner to advocate on environmental and sustainable development issues;

—by requiring that the appointment of a commissioner be approved by both the House and the Senate;

—by ensuring that a funding mechanism at arm's length from the government be established for the Office of the Commissioner;

—by protecting the right of the commissioner to name the office's staff, including environmental auditors, without government influence; and

—that the committee adopt these recommendations as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

If I could, Mr. Chair, I would like to take a few minutes to just recap what we know about the position of the environment commissioner and to elaborate on my motion.

The first thing to remind ourselves I think is that the creation of this position was largely part of the response the government made in response to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, when as a country we signed on to the Rio Declaration and to a forestry statement and declaration and of course to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In 1993, the Liberal campaign red book contained a new, innovative proposal for the creation of this Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

To the best of our knowledge, and having gone back through some of the debate with parliamentarians at the time, Mr. Chair, there seemed to be significant resistance in the senior ranks of the federal public service to the creation of this post. I recall that the Auditor General at the time, Denis Desautels, appeared to have offered to host the position in order to anchor it in an auditing type of office.

In April 1995, the government proposed the creation of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development in the Office of the Auditor General. At about the same time, our government was among the first in the world to require ministers to prepare and table sustainable development strategies for their departments.

In my mind, there's no doubt that locating the post in the Auditor General's office lent immediate credibility and stability to a new, fledgling post. We were one of maybe two countries in the world that were creating such a post at the time.

The evidence I have around this is only anecdotal, but I think now there are also problems with the structure. As we've just seen, we're not quite sure what happened this past week with the Auditor General and whether there were professional or interpersonal differences—that's speculative on my part—but clearly we're seeing that there are problems with the position's still remaining inside the Auditor General's office.

It's clear that the legislation, upon my reading, allows the Auditor General, and not the environment commissioner, to retain the final say on environmental matters. We don't know whether there is possible interference in the commissioner's work by the Auditor General or not. We haven't really had forthcoming answers from the Auditor General. I think we would all agree as committee members that we're left to guess, to surmise, what those difficulties might be.

In any case, to repeat myself, there's enough evidence, in my view, to say that there's a structural problem or issue.

I think after 12 years of important reports and progress it's time to take this office and the role of the commissioner to the next level, a new iteration. We would be best guided, in my view, by looking at the mandate, for example, of the Commissioner of Official Language as a possible precedent.

As set out in the Official Languages Act, the Commissioner of Official Languages acts as an independent agent of Parliament. That office plays several key roles in promoting and achieving the objectives of the Official Languages Act. It ensures, for example, that federal institutions comply with the act, upholding the language rights of Canadians, promoting linguistic duality, promoting bilingualism.

The Commissioner of Official Languages may initiate a review of any regulations or directives made under that act and of any other regulations or directives that affect or may affect the status or use of the official languages, for example.

I think these duties and powers might serve as a helpful model as we consider how to construct a more effective, fully independent environment commissioner.

I was struck by what Auditor General Fraser said last week in indicating that she intended to take some time before appointing the next commissioner, and that the interim commissioner might be there until at least next fall, which I understand is six, eight, maybe ten months away.

I think we would want to seize upon a wonderful moment here. Maybe the best time to act is now to examine the structure, to bolster the role of the commissioner, and to examine hiving off the position from the Auditor General's office itself.

In any event, I'm hoping that if we are able and successful, Mr. Chair, in this regard, there will be a new and transparent recruitment process for whoever is to succeed Madame Gélinas ultimately as the commissioner; that the position will be properly gazetted; that there would be a hiring panel and an interview panel; and that we would establish core competencies, even perhaps let the committee have an opportunity to vet or to meet the final candidate. This certainly reflects the importance of the big job ahead, and I think it would go some distance in ensuring transparency and effectiveness for Canadians.

To conclude, I hope we would all agree that the commissioner's role is probably now more important than ever before, so this might be a wonderful moment for us to strike.

Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I believe Mr. Cullen is next.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting that in viewing this motion and in the whole consideration of the Auditor General's office and the commissioner's office, we seem to move around some of the issues we've been faced with.

I think this has been thrust upon us, frankly, this sudden departure of Ms. Gélinas under circumstances we don't yet know, with claims and testimony from the Auditor General herself saying that the media attention wasn't necessarily high enough; that it wasn't getting as much attention through this independent presentation as it might through her presentation; that government hadn't responded enough to what the commissioner had been asking for over the years.

On both counts I find it worrisome that the conclusion is to bury it deeper within the Auditor General's reports and offices and then appoint somebody with little environmental background to the position for up to a year, having replaced somebody with much credibility and background on the environment.

I think it's incumbent upon us as committee members to hear from Ms. Fraser. She mentioned in the letter she gave us today that she's interested in coming back. She has opinions, clearly, about the policy framework for this.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this, I think it's challenging for her not to be able to comment on policy, particularly when the policy is affecting her office, which this is. It's one or the other, and it's become difficult for me to understand what position she's taking. Does the auditor comment on policy? Do the auditors audit themselves?

In the testimony previously, there seems to be some justification of policies, which were laid out by Parliament, by the auditor herself; that there is backing up and shoring up of opinion rather than fact.

My last point on this—and I think this is brought to light in this motion and in what we'll be drafting hopefully into legislation to be supported—is the idea that traditional auditing practices, when it comes to things as wide-sweeping as the environment, don't apply well.

I can understand Ms. Fraser's consternation—or that of people in her office, perhaps—when they see what they believe to be the Commissioner of the Environment's stepping beyond traditional auditing boundaries.

I think there's a call for that. When you have governments making proposals, promises, commitments, and then presenting a plan that doesn't meet the commitment over something such as climate change, as an example, is it incumbent upon somebody auditing that government to make comment if they know full well in advance that the target is X and the solution is Y? Perhaps.

As Mr. McGuinty points out, this is a relatively new position in the world—it's been 10 years tried. But if part of the problem was that it wasn't getting enough attention or it wasn't forcing government in previous times or in current times to react enough, as Ms. Fraser said, then for heaven's sakes, moving it out and giving it more independence and more attention seems worthwhile; not burying it deeper within an auditor's report, so that when the audit comes out there are six booklets and one of them may or may not be on the environment—with Canadians telling all of us that this is the leading critical issue right now.

We'll likely be supporting the motion, and we'll want to hear from some witnesses, ideally Ms. Fraser and perhaps some others.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Next is Mr. Bigras, and then Mr. Warawa.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to repeat what my colleagues have said, but from the outset, from the momentMs. Fraser testified, I called for more independence for the Commissioner of the Environment. As Nathan was saying, we mustn't allow environmental issues to be overshadowed by broader audit concerns. That is the mandate of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General is responsible for auditing government and each government department. I have always believed that the government should analyze policies, particularly those relating to the environment. I'm thinking here about the strategic environmental assessment. A relevant directive was issued by the Prime Minister's Office 25 years ago, but the government refuses to apply it because of the belief that economic principles must prevail in the government decision-making process.

The environment is a fundamental issue. I don't quite understand, and I'd like Ms. Fraser to come and explain to us what she means when she says that defending causes and conducting legislative audits are incompatible pursuits.

Consider, for example, the former Commissioner of Official Languages. Just because Ms. Adam, as Commissioner of Official Languages, defended the role of francophones in the federal public service doesn't mean she didn't conduct a proper audit. I don't think Ms. Adam overstepped her position. Nor do I think she defended a cause. Rather, she took steps to ensure -- as her mandate dictates -- that francophones have a place in the federal public service.

Therefore, in my opinion, we should be guided by the work of Ms. Adam, the former Commissioner of Official Languages, when called upon to makes choices concerning the Commissioner of the Environment. If it was good for the former Commissioner of Official Languages and for the Privacy Commissioner, then it can certainly be good for the Commissioner of the Environment.

Therefore, I support greater independence and the separation of powers between the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment. As such, I will, of course, support the motion.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Warawa.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Cullen, and myself were asked this question on Friday, and we had a healthy dialogue as we debated the issue when we were being interviewed on CBC. The position of the government remains neutral on this. We would be open to considering this and open to hearing from witnesses.

At this point the plan is the motion has been tabled. Some statements have been made, and witnesses will be called. I don't have a problem with that, but I would like to correct some of the statements made.

Mr. McGuinty did mention that there was a promise made in the 1993 red book that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would be created as an independent commissioner. They were the government since that time up until a little over a year ago, so a question is relevant: when they had that opportunity to appoint that position as an independent, why didn't it happen? I think that's a legitimate question.

The other comment was made using the example of Madam Gélinas no longer being the commissioner. There was a statement made that there were problems with the office being within the Office of the Auditor General. I think Mr. McGuinty said he didn't want to surmise what the difficulties might be. We don't know that there are problems within the office. Again, we are surmising, and Mr. McGuinty said we don't want to surmise. Just as a caution, we're prejudging the situation here. We're possibly making some assumptions that may not help the situation.

We want to look at the position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development as good policy and not base it on a specific instance. We don't know if there are problems with the present structure. We need to approach this with an open mind.

Also, a comment was made that we need a more effective, independent commissioner. Again, we need to look at this with an open mind. Is it indeed more effective to have the commissioner independent from the Auditor General's office? We haven't heard from witnesses yet. We don't know that. Also, Mr. Cullen mentioned that what is being proposed with a change of reporting--which I think is what he was referring to--would bury it deeper within the Office of the Auditor General. Again, we don't know that. So hopefully we can all approach this with an open mind.

I do have some concerns with the motion, and we may want to consider some amendments, but the second bullet saying, “clearly affirming and appropriately circumscribing the duty of the Office of the Commissioner to advocate on environmental and sustainable development issues”, is a vague term. Ms. Fraser has provided a caution to the committee saying, “As I mentioned last week, policy advocacy and legislative audit simply do not mix.” There would be a possible conflict. “Auditors cannot in fact, or in appearance, audit their own work.” I would agree with that. Again, we need to clarify what is meant by that. The mover may want to consider changing that or clarifying what it means.

I do have some concerns with some of the statements that have been made. I'm neutral, open to hearing from witnesses and then moving on. I don't know if we want to consider some amendments to what we have here before us for direction to the committee, but those are my comments.

Thank you.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Regan, then Mr. Vellacott.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that in that the motion refers to circumscribing the role, the point is that this part of it would in fact say that these are the restrictions, effectively. What we have to ask ourselves is whether we're going to have a separate, independent Commissioner of the Environment and what the role should be.

Clearly this isn't legislation we're drafting here; we're drafting a resolution that would be recommended to Parliament to go further, for the government to bring forward a bill. We don't have to be too precise, but I think we want to talk about the question of what we think the role ought to be and to what degree it should be independent or not.

It seems to me that Mr. McGuinty has raised a very good point about the Auditor General having the final say on the reports of the Commissioner of the Environment. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we think that's the right way for things to work. We have to ask ourselves what Parliament looks for in selecting an Auditor General—what the qualifications sought in that role are—and whether those qualifications are appropriate in relation to oversight of the Commissioner of the Environment or whether, because of the nature of the Auditor General's role and the audit function, the commissioner should be separate.

Also, if it's separate, does the audit function generally then remain with the Auditor General while the commissioner has a different role, with some kind of circumscribed advocacy? We have to look at the degree to which this role is different in nature from other kinds of auditing functions. I think it is different in nature for some of the reasons we've heard today, but it seems to me that's what we have to be considering.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that it would be nice to have the witness names today, before the end of the committee meeting. I'm not sure whether that's possible or not. I'm hoping we can get them to you by tomorrow. I don't know whether we're looking at a meeting on this topic on Thursday or whether we could do it that soon; I'm sure Mr. McGuinty would prefer it, if we can. Obviously, if the witnesses aren't available, maybe we can chat and find the next best time.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I'm just suggesting that if we can, we should come up with those witnesses. I think Mr. Cullen has some in mind, and I imagine other members do. If we can put together a group for Thursday, let's do it.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

It shouldn't be too difficult, providing they're available.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Vellacott.