Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

Thanks to our review and to the meetings we want to have with members of Parliament, we could draw up the profile of the next commissioner. The recruitment process could easily take as long as six months. I therefore expect that we will have a commissioner in place in about one year.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much. That is all I had.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I will have us turn our attention to reading the motion. Mr. McGuinty had a motion before us, in which he's calling for the role of the commissioner to transition to

...a full and independent Agent of Parliament (“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—

I would like to ask you, Ms. Fraser, if you could explain whether there would be additional bureaucracy or repetition of functions if that were to happen.

Particularly, you may have read an article by former Liberal Minister of the Environment Sheila Copps. In it, she makes the point that at the time when she was the Minister of the Environment we were in the process of laying off 40,000 public servants, so it seemed logical to cut down on the creation of a new bureaucracy.

With that as a backdrop, could you respond in terms of whether or not there would be additional bureaucracy and some repetition of functions if that new and fully independent agent of Parliament reporting directly to the House and the Senate were to be established?

[Sheila Fraser]

Obviously, Mr. Chair, it will depend very much upon the functions that are given. The specific duties and functions are not described in the motion. If it were an audit function, yes, there could be duplication. If it were not an audit function, then we would have to look to see whether there were other bodies carrying out the functions being proposed. So I can't really answer the question because I don't know what the expectation would be.

If you go back to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from 1994, what is actually quite clear is that they gave a different role to the independent commissioner that was being proposed by the committee. I can just quote from the foreword of that report. They are talking about the creation of an independent commissioner, and they say:

This proactive role is the purview of a Commissioner whose functions typically include policy evaluation, forward-looking advice, anticipation, prevention, advocacy, and the coordination of diverse initiatives.

Then they go on to say:

—the Committee has concluded that an expansion of the role of the Auditor General would enhance the accountability aspect of existing public policy—This rear view mirror role could provide useful insights on past performance, and would be a complement to the primary work performed by the Commissioner.

When we read this, it would appear that the committee back in 1994 saw the role of the commissioner and the role of the Auditor General as being very different. The Auditor General would do the audit function and the kind of review of the past, whereas the commissioner would have more of an advocacy role, commenting on policy, with a forward-looking kind of role. Those are very different roles.

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

This may be one, but I don't mean it as an unfair question: Do you have any kind of comparative when we look at some of those others, like the Commissioner of Official Languages or those bodies? In the most positive sense of the word, what kind of bureaucracy is required, along with the expense of running such an office in that fashion? In terms of numbers of employees—

[Sheila Fraser]

The budgets of their offices would probably be anywhere from $2 million to $5 million. They obviously have to set up an administrative structure.

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

Right. And how many employees are there, approximately?

[Sheila Fraser]

Forty or fifty employees.

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

Forty or fifty employees.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you. I'll just quickly follow up on Mr. Vellacott's point.

As was pointed out, if I am to take climate change as an issue, which the Commissioner of the Environment obviously has much to do with, the expense was pointed out for inaction or failed action when it comes to climate change. I was asked yesterday by people from the lower mainland in Vancouver what adaptation would cost with a one- or two-metre rise in sea level for the lower mainland.

Mr. Warawa will know these. The immediate estimates that are going around Richmond and Delta are in the billions. So if we want to do some costing in terms of effectiveness, the more we can spend on prevention—

I believe the Commissioner of the Environment's office is primarily about preventative action in some ways, in order to not have us go down the wrong track. So let me ask you a couple of things.

You just made a suggestion that I think might be somewhat helpful for the committee. In 1994, when the committee was seized with the same question, there was much more of an advocacy role imagined for this office, and perhaps there was some distinction that the committee would consider in terms of what a commissioner might be all about. There are five functions: guardian, advocate, auditor, information provider, and adviser. Those five functions are contained in one office. It seems that would be challenging, under your experience.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

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

That's what New Zealand has in its Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That's outlined as their role.

The one in the United Kingdom, which has had some great amount more success than we have had—and I wouldn't attribute it only to this—has three particular roles, according to their website: “Respond openly to Government policy initiatives”, which is clearly into the realm of commentary on what the government's plans are; “Invite debates on controversial subjects”; and “Undertake watchdog appraisals of Government's progress”.

It seems to me that it's an old adage in business that you can't manage what you can't measure. With an issue like climate change, where early action pays long-term benefits and inaction is very expensive, the stakes are quite high if we get this wrong. So far, we have gotten it wrong, I think, and the commissioner's reports and auditor's reports have said so in terms of what we hoped to do and what actually happened.

To not have somebody in that advocacy role, as Mr. Vellacott or Mr. Calkins mentioned, allows the issue of what the government's doing with respect to climate change to go to the to-and-fro of the political moment. Other things get attention. The accountability on something like emissions reduction, which is difficult to do, is not very strong.

I think you've made a suggestion to us that perhaps the original mandate or envisioned mandate for the Commissioner of the Environment—and one that's used by other nations that have been more successful than Canada in that advocacy or policy discretion role, while occupying a central place within the bureaucratic structure—might be something this committee should consider in regard to Mr. McGuinty's proposal.

[Sheila Fraser]

I brought forward the original committee recommendation because I found it very interesting. It clearly recognizes that there is a difference between audit—which is the retrospective, which is what the Commissioner of the Environment has been doing so far—and that forward-looking analysis of plans in a proactive kind of role, which an audit office cannot fulfill.

I'm not quite sure how the New Zealand one works, but the U.K. commission is like an advisory body to government. It's not an independent audit office type of model like the one we have.

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

But it uses that advice based upon audits and what has worked and what has not worked. They draw upon the auditor's work.

[Sheila Fraser]

Sure, and I would hope the work of any audit office would help to inform and give objective information that could then be used for more proactive discussion.

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

That seems to be what we've lacked over the years: the capacity to have a true watchdog.

This is my last question, because I know I'm going to run out of time.

On this straying into what is policy or not policy, we spoke about this recently this week. I don't get it, frankly. On the one hand, you're saying we must be very careful to have the auditor's office not commenting on policy. It's a fundamental. But in your letters to us, particularly the letter on February 5, you advocate for a certain policy measure—and I mean this with all respect, but I'm frankly just a little confused by it.

[Sheila Fraser]

I guess, Mr. Chair, we allow ourselves to comment on policy when it affects the Auditor General Act, because it has a direct impact upon the office and I don't think we can stay indifferent to that.

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

I see. Okay, that starts to square the circle a bit for me.

All I'd say in my last comment to the committee members is that if we maintain the goal as members of Parliament to have the responsibility that the government performs well when it comes to the environment—and I would suggest performs better—then that watchdog, that role it has—

It's a question of legitimate voice. Mr. Calkins talked about the national round table and others, but it seems right now that the word of the Commissioner of the Environment in the last year certainly has been something that each and every member around this table has used to try to effect change. On any notion of losing that—and I know you'll make an argument on one side, of keeping it separate, and I'm going to be making arguments on the other, of having greater independence, not having it a part of your general reports, those types of things—anything we can do to strengthen that, not lessen it, particularly at this crossroads point for our country, seems important, because it's a unique role. I know of no other role, really, in the country, in my experience with the environment, than the one Madame Gélinas occupied in my two and a half years here. It was a very unique voice that we all, from all parties, relied upon consistently, because you couldn't question it.

And I know you'll make a point as to why it needs to be only backcasting, but I think there's a space—I really believe there's a space—to compare the government's commitments to its plans, and if they don't match, to say so, because in our world, matching promises to the reality is very difficult.

So I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, and then Mr. Godfrey.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question to Mr. Thompson. Is the audit process continuing on the environment, with you now as the acting environment commissioner? I believe there is a report coming out in the not too distant future, so I'm wondering, what is the status of the audit on the environment?

As we all know, it's the number one priority of the government. Canadians have made it very clear that we need action on the environment. In the past, the office of the commissioner has been critical. My hope is that we get a good report, but we will be accountable for whether or not we're taking action and meeting policy.

So I just want an update. Is it proceeding?

[Ron Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Warawa, it certainly is proceeding. We have a group of about 40 or 45 environmentalists who are also auditors, who are highly motivated young men and women. We have a report due for October that is going to be the statutory work—work on petitions, work on SDSs, on sustainable development strategies—but we're also going to take a very detailed look at some of the SDSs, to get into some of the departments to find out whether in fact these SDSs are achieving what they were designed to achieve, which is to put the environment and sustainable development on management's table.

We also have a report coming that we're hard at work on for February, which is a retrospective, a look back over about ten years. We're going to look at key recommendations and observations made by the commissioners over the past decade, and we'll be reporting that to you in February.

What we want to do with that is get a sense of, I guess, at the end of the day, have governments taken the environment and sustainable development seriously? One measure of that is the extent to which action has been taken on issues that we've raised and recommendations that we have made.

Looking beyond that, we have a plan that we've developed over the past several months. We know what we would like to report in subsequent years, and I'd like an opportunity, actually, to talk to individual members at some point to review with you the plan that we've evolved to date.

But the commissioner's office is alive and well, and the audits are on target.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Fraser, you've asked for input from committee members, and you've said that you will be meeting with us. There have been a few comments regarding the possible new reporting structure. Could you share with us—again, not dealing with policy—what are the advantages of going to the four times a year as opposed to the once a year? You've heard concerns that it will be lost in another report and not have the impact. Are we talking about four opportunities to hold the government to account on the environment, as opposed to one time a year?

I have five children and four grandchildren, and they definitely need to be told more than once, to be held to account. So is that their perspective, that the message would be getting out more often, or is it going to be lost? You've heard some of the concerns, so could you share with the committee what you see as the advantages of having it four times a year?

[Sheila Fraser]

The proposal would be to go to three times a year. A couple of the advantages we thought of, either a joint tabling or to do the—It's really about the tabling of the reports and to perhaps do a joint tabling. When the Auditor General tables, the commissioner also table reports at that time, or the environmental work be tabled at that time.

We saw two advantages to that. One was that when we deal with Auditor General reports we tend to get a broader variety of journalists, the kinds of journalists who are interested in government management issues. When we table the environmental reports, we tend to get a narrower focus. They view it as being an environmental issue and not that broad kind of government issue. So we thought we could get more journalists actually interested in the issues, and that might give us more attention.

Another issue too that we thought would be helpful is that all the Auditor General reports are automatically referred to the public accounts committee, and the public accounts committee really has a very rigorous kind of regime with departments about holding them to account for management issues. We believe that some of the environmental management issues should also be going to that committee.

That doesn't mean we can't find a way to do that anyway, but I realize the more policy kinds of committees like this committee don't have the same approach as the public accounts committee to bring the departments in with us to ask for an action plan and to hold them to account.

Those were the two main reasons for proposing a change.