Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

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

That's one of the options.

[Sheila Fraser]

It was one of the options, and we would certainly like to hear what members think about it.

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

I will tell you what I think, if I may.

I'm trying to remember back to the reports that you released that had a big impact. I live in a rural riding. The gun registry one, for example, had a big impact through the media.

[Sheila Fraser]

Media impact.

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

Sure, yes. True indeed, because we are still with the gun registry.

The sponsorship program. I'm trying to imagine one of these little books being presented along with your conclusions on the sponsorship program and trying to imagine any attention being given, no matter what was in this environment book, because what happened in those moments in terms of the media and the public attention clearly went to something that was quite large and lasted for a year or two.

My opinion, and I am not so much asking a question as I am stating this, is that the chances of the environment being elevated even further with you releasing other reports on other audits just based on past experience and effectiveness—I'm really suspicious of that. I just can't imagine a report on water quality on first nations reserves given by the Commissioner of the Environment standing with a sponsorship program report. It's got a snowball's chance. There's just no way.

[Sheila Fraser]

I would just assure the committee that I hope I never have to have another report like sponsorship.

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

I'm sure the current government hopes you never have another report like the sponsorship as well.

[Sheila Fraser]

We have issued probably close to 150 audits. I would say there have been three or four that have received that kind of exceptional media attention.

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

My last question—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Hopefully we'll get back to you.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Fraser and Mr. Thompson, the reason why you're here before us today, of course, is for us to hear your testimony regarding the motion that was tabled last week from Mr. McGuinty suggesting that the office of the environment commissioner be separate from the Auditor General's office.

I have a couple of questions. Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my ten minutes with Mr. Harvey, so I'll just be taking five.

How is the Office of the Auditor General audited?

[Sheila Fraser]

Audited?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes. Can your office be audited?

I really appreciate the job that you've done in making sure you measure the effectiveness of how we work as government. I love your reports. I keep in my folder here the highlights since 1998. I won't read those. But I'm sure you'll be keeping this government accountable too.

How is your office audited?

[Sheila Fraser]

In fact, several audits are done of us. Obviously a financial audit is done each year. That is done by a private sector accounting firm, and those audits are published in our departmental performance report.

The real issue, though, is not our management of finances, because it is not that complicated within our office. The issue is really about the quality of the work we do and what we have done.

In 2001, I believe, we had a peer review done of our financial audit practice by a major firm in the private sector. The report was released in 2004.

In 2000 we had an audit done of our performance audit practice, of which the environmental audit is part. That was done by peers of ours. An international team—the audit offices of France, Norway, and the Netherlands, led by Great Britain—did an audit of us. The report is on our website. As with any audit, there were recommendations, and our action plan to address those recommendations is there as well. We are planning to have another peer review done by an international group of colleagues before the end of my term.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You mention in paragraph 7 that your office has become a world leader in environmental auditing. You've also mentioned that in the 50 nations in the international auditing community, most governmental environmental auditing is done through an auditor general's office or through a design similar to what we have. Is that because of the success we've had in Canada—because we are world leaders—or is it the other way around?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'm not sure I can answer that. There are some countries—New Zealand, for instance—that have a distinct commissioner of the environment. Most countries, though, do not have that kind of position, and most countries, quite honestly--well, some of the European countries do a fair bit of environmental auditing work. I would look at countries like the Netherlands, Norway, and probably Great Britain, to a certain extent; they in fact do environmental auditing, and it is done by the auditor general or the auditor general's equivalent, so it is part of their work.

I was trying to make the point in my opening statement that our environmental audit practice is not limited simply to reports issued by the commissioner. It is integrated into all the audit work we do, even financial audits or audits of crown corporations; the environmental aspect is integrated throughout the practice.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

What would be the pros and cons, the advantages or disadvantages, of having the commissioner's office separate from your office?

[Sheila Fraser]

As I said earlier, I think the issue is really about the role the separate office would have. If it were to have a role of policy analysis advice to government, that is obviously not a role we could play, and so obviously there would not be a conflict with us. If it were set up as a separate audit group, I would be concerned for a number of reasons. Duplication would be one, but also we would have to continue to have a group of environmental auditors within our office to be able to do all our other audits. The environment is a very important part of government management, so I would certainly be very reluctant to say I'm not going to do that anymore and someone else will do it.

I look at other organizations that exist and may have an auditing role as well—for example, in the case of the Public Service Commission, which has an audit role over classification, we still continue to do audits of human resource management, so it's not because somebody else may have parts of it that we would not audit a very important issue.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey is next.

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

Ms. Fraser, I listened to my colleagues' questions and I think they're trying to politicize the environment commissioner's role. Based on their questions, they seemed to be trying to make the commissioner a policy advocate.

The Auditor General's role is apparently to compare the government's objectives and the outcomes. Is that correct?

[Sheila Fraser]

The objectives must be made clear and explicit, whether via legislation, a policy, or some other mechanism. Objectives may, for example, be announced during an election campaign by a party hoping to form a government. We wouldn't comment on such objectives. However if a policy or legislation were adopted, we would review its implementation and audit the way in which the government is meeting its objectives.

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

If there were to be an independent environment commissioner, would you still need to conduct environmental audits?

[Sheila Fraser]

Absolutely. The environment is a very important issue and is part of many of our audits. We would need to continue with our environmental auditing and maintain the expertise we have at the office.

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

So if this comes about, there would be a direct duplication of a service.