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.