Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

I'd like to make two observations, Auditor General, and then get some comments.

I've made this first observation before: that as I read the Auditor General Act, under subsection 7(2), it is very much a question of auditing things that have happened—it's accounts that have not been paid, essential records have not been maintained, money's been expended for purposes other than, etc., with the exception of paragraph 7.(2)(f), which I shall return to.

Under the section on sustainable development, which is presumably to guide the commissioner, we are looking at something that is much more prospective. That is to say, first of all, we are advocating for sustainable development. We think it's a good thing. It's like official languages: we think that's a good thing or we wouldn't have a commissioner, presumably, by definition. But it's toward sustainable development and it's defined as an evolving concept and it deals with issues that are not mentioned in subsection 7(2) of the act, such as meeting international obligations, promoting equity, and dealing with the needs of future generations.

So by definition there is a split between looking backward, which is the function of the Auditor General, and this inevitable looking forward, which is implied by sustainable development and the commissioner. That's the first observation.

The second observation is that under subsection 7(2), this auditing of essential records and money being expended, there is paragraph (f), which says “money has been expended without due regard to the environmental effect of those expenditures in the context of sustainable development”.

So my second conclusion is that the Auditor General's office deals with sustainable development in two ways. It has a specific function for the commissioner, and then in all the work, as you say in point 7 of your remarks today, “environmental aspects are considered in all of our work by all audit teams throughout the Office”. I thought about that. I went back to your 2006 audit for November and I recognize there are places where it would be very hard to make a case that there was something to do with sustainable development, like pension and insurance administration for the RCMP.

However, I did come to chapter 7, “Federal Participation in the British Columbia Treaty Process”, and there are many observations you make on a number of subjects of importance, such as narrowing the gap of living standards, lost economic opportunities. But what I find curious in this is here was an opportunity in commenting on this to insert an element of “And by the way, since we're spending all this money, under paragraph (f) I'm going to ask the question, where's the sustainable development part? There's a reference to resources, but there's not a reference to whether this is sustainable.”

In other words, I'm not sure that even with the current integrated model, at least if this is anything to go by, other than doing the obvious for atomic energy and so on, that there was an opportunity to exercise (f), if I might put it there, which was missed. Have I missed something myself in that?

[Sheila Fraser]

I guess we could go back and look at it. Obviously, we look a lot at how the departments frame these processes and how they describe them. This was really about the management of a negotiation process.

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

You comment on legal, political, and economic options. You lay out all sorts of other considerations—land, resources, governances, finances, financial benefits. But at no place was the lens of sustainable development applied in an integrated fashion when there was an opportunity to do so. You raised all sorts of other issues, like equity issues, social...good things to raise. All I'm saying is that it's not evident to me that you were considering environmental aspects in all our work by all our audit teams when you had the opportunity.

[Sheila Fraser]

I would have to go back and look at the planning. In all of the planning for all of our work there is a distinct consideration the teams have to do on this. I could go back and find out what considerations were given to it in that particular audit.

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

What I'm saying is that although it's listed directly in your functions, it does not seem to be part of the standard set of questions you ask where it might be appropriate, where things like natural resources, government money, and land are being dealt with.

[Sheila Fraser]

If I could take exception, Mr. Chair, it is asked when we do the scoping of audits. We do look at that as a requirement for all the audit teams, but in certain cases it may be determined that this particular line of inquiry is not as important as others, and the teams will focus on certain specific aspects.

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

To which a conclusion might be, well, maybe one of the reasons we need an independent commissioner for the environment is so that it will be top of mind and not tenth of mind.

[Sheila Fraser]

Would you suggest, then, that this commissioner would be doing an audit of the B.C. treaty process?

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

What I'm suggesting is that the current arrangements, in which you defend having the audit function within your office, do not seem, in this particular case—maybe unfairly—to have been given a weighting that is the equivalent of the economic aspects or the social aspects, which you reference specifically. It's just not one of the three pillars of development. It's like it's two, and where does sustainable development go?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The bigger question, Mr. Godfrey, would be how many more cases are there? There's always going to be the exception.

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

I think this was the only place within the 12 chapters. Well, there's one on sustainable development and Technology Canada, but that's a different issue.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to have been integrated in the way that one might have expected if the Auditor General's office were as alert to these issues as an important question as is suggested by your document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Your time is up.

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Do you have any progress report or an evaluation of the way your office has carried out its mandate since receiving it following discussions in 1994-1995? Has it been determined whether the mandate you were given on environmental matters was realistic and achievable?

Initially, we wondered whether it would be advisable to give the job to two different people or organizations, in other words to separate the audit and advocacy functions, to use your terms. Do you have any written evaluations about this?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, because we accept the mandate we were given. It is very clear, from the professional standards we have to work with, that we must restrict ourselves to the audit functions. We should not comment on policies, for example. We have a professional standard that provides guidance.

As far as we are concerned, the mandate and the way in which it should be interpreted are clear. We wanted to raise the issue at the committee because there seem to be some expectations that we cannot meet. We wanted to know whether this deserved consideration by the committee.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

In any company, whenever an objective has to be met, it can be determined whether the objective was 90% met or that part of it could not be achieved, because it did not really come within the mandate of the company.

So you do not have an evaluation of this type in writing?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. However, that is partly why we wanted to carry out the review this summer. We wanted to hear what parliamentarians think—because they are our main clients—as well as what other people think about our effectiveness and the way in which we carry out our mandate. We wanted to see whether we could improve. That was the objective of the review.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You quoted Mr. Desautels, and as I understand it, his comments could be summarized as follows: both the Auditor General and the Environmental Auditor General should be carrying out auditing duties only.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

At the time, did Mr. Desautels express an opinion about the advisability of incorporating these two activities into the same organization?

[Sheila Fraser]

At the time, he proposed the same arguments: namely, that the role of the advisor to the government cannot be assumed by an audit office. The two functions are incompatible. The Office of the Auditor General at that time had been doing environmental audits since the early 90s, and Mr. Desautels wanted that activity to continue being performed by the office.

If the committee wanted to set up another organization that would play more of an advisory role, that would be fine. However, we have to make it clear to committee members that these two activities are incompatible. Actually, the committee did make some recommendations along these lines at the time.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

The person who performed these duties is no longer in the position. Have you suspended these activities or have you ensured that the work will continue to be done in this area?

[Sheila Fraser]

The audit teams are continuing to perform their duties. As with all our reports, the work is done not only by the Auditor General or the commissioner: we have whole teams behind them. The people on the team are continuing to work. Of course, Mr. Thompson will be guiding their work over the year ahead.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I know that your team works hard and well.

So you are continuing to operate under the same mandate, except if the government changes your mandate.