Environment Committee on Feb. 5th, 2007

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

I've been listening carefully and attentively to the committee members. I've been hearing the comments from different members around the table from both sides here, and I think maybe a way to do it.... I would suggest it first by way of a friendly amendment, because I think it takes into account suggestions that Nathan meant and Geoff implied, and I guess Mr. Warawa as well, to have witnesses. I think a way to do it might be to insert a friendly amendment at the beginning of the first sentence of the motion. It implies considering, looking at, and hearing testimony of people coming forward as soon as we have a list together.

I would propose a friendly amendment to say that this committee “consider calling upon the government”, and then proceeding as outlined.

I think it's a friendly amendment; it could be perceived that way. Also implicit in it, of course, when this committee is “considering”, is that—probably in the minds of most of us it implies—that witnesses are coming forward. You've referred to that, Mr. Chair, as have members of all the parties here in our discussion or deliberations so far.

I would propose this and ask permission of the mover of this motion, if he would consider it—since we're already into discussion of witnesses and so on—as a friendly amendment, basically not deflecting anything in his motion at this point, but having witnesses come forward, so that we as a committee “consider calling upon the government”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm not sure, Mr. Vellacott, but I believe we're not going to have a vote today; therefore, I think since we won't be voting, we really don't need that amendment at this point. We are simply going to call witnesses; then, of course, at that point we might consider what amendments we would want to make to the motion we're going to vote on and would vote on those amendments at that time.

My interpretation would be that this amendment wouldn't be necessary today. It might be down the road, but I haven't heard anybody say they don't want to hear witnesses on this and move forward.

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

Well, yes, that's exactly my point. If you're going to consider it after we've had witnesses, then it really makes the whole point moot; that's why I'm suggesting it now. But it's no big deal, if what we're understanding is that we're having witnesses come forward. That's the intent of the friendly suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. McGuinty has indicated that's acceptable in this motion.

You're not expecting a vote today, are you, Mr. McGuinty?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No. We're not stubborn in that regard.

We'd like to move it along quickly. I don't think there's a need to delay this. So if we can get witnesses in by tomorrow and move to hear from them as soon as possible....

I don't think it would take a lot of witnesses. I have some ideas; I know other members have ideas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's my suggestion, that we simply say we need the list as quickly as you can get it to us. We'll try to set up our next meeting to accommodate those witnesses and then at that point move forward.

Next on my list is Mr. Harvey, and then Mr. Godfrey.

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

As for the basic principle at issue here, namely that the Commissioner of the Environment should operate independently with a separate budget, I think there is unanimity on this score. However, what I can't understand is that to my knowledge, the Commissioner already enjoys these privileges.

I believe the problem between Ms. Fraser and Ms. Gélinas had more to do with the activities carried out in connection with these reports than with the actual reports produced by the Commissioner of the Environment. Ms. Fraser said that she had approved and backed the reports, that they had been tabled and that there weren't any problems. There are limitations to the job, regardless of who holds the position of Auditor General.

We mustn't delude ourselves either. Fundamentally, the opposition's role is to comment on a report released by an auditor general. The Auditor General must not usurp the opposition's role, which is to comment on reports. I can't see you giving an official the power to comment on a report that she herself produced. She could only agree with herself. I have some questions about this, questions that I will ask when we hear from the witnesses.

That's not all. We already have an office that goes by the name of the Office of the Auditor General.The name means that the Auditor General oversees other areas of responsibility, including the environment. If ever we amend these responsibilities, what message are we sending out about the position of Auditor General? It would be tantamount to saying that we no longer have confidence in the Auditor General's abilities or judgment.

These are questions that I will be putting to the witnesses. I hope that we have an opportunity to hear from some witnesses and to discuss this matter with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would hope, Mr. Harvey, that we're not going to get into that.

Having been on the environment committee for a number of years, I believe Ms. Gélinas has always been very kind to all parties. Her comments have been very good. We have based an awful lot of what we did in opposition, certainly, on those reports.

I hope this won't get into attacking the job that has been done or the job of the Auditor General in terms of her role with the environment commissioner. I believe almost everyone on this committee and on previous committees would agree that the job has been excellent and has fit very well. I think we have to make sure we don't cast aspersions on what has been I think a pretty successful operation.

Obviously, I think most of us would like to strengthen the reporting on environment, and if that's what we're talking about, then let's get on with it. If we're going to start picking problems, I think we're going down the wrong road.

That would be your chairman's feeling about this sort of thing.

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'd like to respond at this time to Mr. Harvey's comments. When we talk about the independence of a commissioner of the environment, we're talking about that person's independence in terms of political party affiliation or ties to the Auditor General. The fact is that the commissioner's office is funded entirely through the Office of the Auditor General. The Commissioner of the Environment must report through the Auditor General.

I think we've evolved beyond that point today.

I think the fundamental difference between the two offices is well contained in the Auditor General Act. I think it can be summarized quite simply: that in the act, the Auditor General, whose functions are described in subsection 7(2), really deals with classical audit functions. They're retrospective: they look backwards to see that accounts have been properly maintained, essential records have been maintained, that money has been expended for the right purposes, that it's been expended for economy and efficiency and effectiveness.

Then there's a little throwaway line about sustainable development, but this is the perspective of classic auditing: value-for-money, backward-looking, strict accounting.

When you come to the section on the Commissioner of the Environment and to the description of what sustainable development is, it is, if anything, future-looking. In fact, it deals with things we did not anticipate. It challenges, in fact, traditional concepts of effectiveness and efficiency, because it says that many things you thought were effective were wildly inefficient. You treated the atmosphere as a free receptacle for greenhouse gases. That's not in the end a very good form of accounting, as it turns out, if you take into account the future.

The description of sustainable development itself says it reports “on the progress of category 1 departments towards sustainable development”; it doesn't report “back” on how they've done it; it's where they are going. Will this lead in a direction?

What is sustainable development? It's a “continually evolving concept based on the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns”, which is achieved by a variety of things: integrating the economy and the environment—

None of that is in the traditional function description of the Auditor General. We're talking about the future health of Canadians, about ecosystems. Nowhere, for example, does the act mention I think, in the Auditor General's classic description, how we're doing meeting our international obligations, yet it's spelled out specifically under the definition of sustainable development and what the commissioner is responsible for.

And “promoting equity”; I don't think equity features as a traditional audit function. It may be under effectiveness or efficiency.

Then there are integrated approaches to planning and decision-making.

There's “preventing pollution”. That's a futuristic thing: how do we stop this happening again in the future?

The final one is “respect for nature and the needs of future generations”.

So I think we've seen that they're radically different mandates, and that's why we can speak of a kind of support by the commissioner for the whole concept of environmental and sustainable development itself. It is different from a traditional concept, that we want clean auditing on past records.

Therefore, I think the time has come to sever the two, and I think there are powerful reasons. As Mr. McGuinty has pointed out, as we become better at understanding this evolving concept of sustainable development, we need to have an independent officer who is not constrained by traditional audit functions or whose reports will not get lost in describing traditional audit functions. They are really worlds apart.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make the following suggestion to my colleague Mr. Harvey. When you examine the position of privacy commissioner and commissioner of official languages, you might want to recommend that they report to the Office of the Auditor General. Why do these positions stand alone?

This is a question that we need to consider, at least in the case of the Commissioner of the Environment. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that Mr. Harvey, or anyone else here for that matter, is attacking Ms. Gélinas or her past accomplishments as Commissioner. The question is whether these responsibilities should be completely or partly separate. Is the job more similar to that of the Privacy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Official Languages, who enjoy a separate status, or should the position continue to come under the authority of the AG's office?

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I would hope we aren't planning to do this forever. It's important, but hopefully after a meeting and some witnesses we can have our discussion and get this dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Are there any other comments?

What I'm hearing then is that you come up with witnesses who you feel we should hear and get those to the clerk as quickly as possible.

We'll try to set something up for Thursday, if it's possible to hear those witnesses then.

Mr. Regan, if we have time afterwards, I would hope that we could make any amendments we want, go to a vote, and then move on.

Are there any other comments?

Yes, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Would it be helpful to put some potential witness names forward now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Certainly. I'm sure the clerk would be happy to receive those.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Picking up on our colleague Mr. Cullen's suggestion, I think it might be important to call Ms. Fraser, who I'm sure has something to say about the structure of the office and its going forward. Clearly she does, because she sent us a pre-emptive strike letter today, asking us to consider her views, which is great.

There is a steering committee, Mr. Chair. In fact, I understand that there are two steering committees, advising the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It might be important to consider inviting the chairs of both of those advisory committees to talk about the structure of the office, or one of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, I believe you asked that question—I'm not sure who did—when Ms. Fraser was here. Did she not make some comment that these people are kind of at arm's length and not—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

All the better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm not sure who asked a question of her—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

But that makes them appropriate as witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Certainly, that's a suggestion.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I would think that being advisers beholden to no one except the Canadian people would make it wonderful for us to hear from them.

It would also be useful to hear from someone on the front line who is responsible for sustainable development strategy. I don't know if that is a director general in a line department who's responsible for holding the pen every two years or not, but certainly somebody who is a practitioner, who is responsible for delivering up the strategies and following up on them.

I guess the last suggestion would make it somebody from the Privy Council Office who is senior in the machinery of government, who can explain to us—picking up on my colleague Mr. Godfrey's comments—what appears to be a fundamental incompatibility of mandates: one being retrospective and the other being prospective. That would be very useful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, I believe you had a comment, and then Mr. Cullen.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

My understanding is that we will be providing names to the clerk now, but also within the next 24 hours.

Maybe there could be international consideration, if there is another country or countries that have an environment commissioner—what's their structure and mandate—and use these as examples to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

For the committee's information, I attended a meeting in Vancouver some time ago, where the environment auditors general of probably about 40 or 50 countries—

Ms. Gélinas was a very active participant and asked me to be a speaker at that event. There were auditors general from all these different countries, so this position does exist in many countries. I believe the indication was that Canada was kind of a leader in setting up this role, and many others followed us and set up a similar type of department.

Now I'm sure Ms. Gélinas could suggest someone on that international scene who might be able to speak. The problem is, could we do it by conference call, video teleconference, or whatever? But that's another suggestion; you would have to talk to Ms. Gélinas for that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair—