Environment Committee on May 7th, 2008

[Scott Vaughan]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the question. I apologize, but I am going to have to answer in English.

Part of the mandate of the commissioner's office—and they have looked at it in previous reports—has been Canada's role and its participation in the international environmental agenda. You correctly identified a strong partnership at the North American level. In addition, there are 185 international environmental agreements to which Canada is a signatory. Some of the issues and preoccupations you touched upon are things that have been and will be of primary importance for the work of the commissioner. I very much look forward to working with you and to talking in more detail about some of these issues.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Fraser, according to the expert panel's report's fourth recommendation, it is suggested that the Auditor General consult parliamentarians in an informal manner before appointing the new commissioner.

What consultative process was undertaken before you appointed Mr. Scott Vaughan?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin with, I consulted the chair of this committee and the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources with respect to the process surrounding the search for and recruitment of a new commissioner. We engaged the services of a firm to look for candidates. There was the whole process involving the selection committee, among other things. I indicated to the two chairs of the parliamentary committees that it was my intention to consult with them before making a formal offer in case they had any concerns about the person selected for the position. So, that is what I did before appointing Mr. Vaughan.

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

I see, thank you.

Mr. Vaughan, the expert panel's report included a recommendation that the environment commissioner should produce a separate report from the Auditor General's. Elsewhere, it states that the environment commissioner should submit an environmental performance review of the government annually to the House of Commons.

Is it your aim to produce an annual report on the government's environmental performance?

[Scott Vaughan]

The recommendations on the continuation of the separate reports have been accepted by the Auditor General, and this will be a practice that will continue. More specifically, on the generation of annual reports, my understanding is that now, at least in the short term, there will be reports produced by the commissioner's office. In fact, I believe that reports will be produced more than once a year. A status report was released in March. In November a comprehensive report will be released that will deal with six different issues. In February 2009 there will be a report on water, the issue you raised, Mr. Bigras, and also on sustainable development strategies.

There is a schedule for the generation of reports—they will build upon the recommendations of the green ribbon panel's report.

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

Mr. Environment Commissioner, will you make it a priority of yours to closely review the strategies developed by every department to achieve sustainable development? As one of your priorities, do you intend to review the plans submitted by each department?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, sir, it is. Let me reiterate: it is a strategy of me and of my colleagues. We very much look forward to working with you and the members of this committee. We need your advice and your views on how to fix the problems with the strategies and to make them more relevant.

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

Perhaps...

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, may I add something to that answer? There is a statutory obligation to verify the sustainable development strategies and to report on them annually.

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

In addition to each department's strategies, there is an overall government strategy. Do you intend to review it? Who needs to spearhead Canada's sustainable development strategy?

[Scott Vaughan]

My understanding, sir, is right now the scope is to look at the strategies that are generated by the category one agencies, as well as some crown corporations. Right now there is no law that would mandate the office to look at an overarching strategy. If there is a policy, then our office would obviously look at that.

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

What are the class 1 departments?

[Scott Vaughan]

There are 26 or 27 departments. Obviously, they would include Environment Canada, Transport Canada, Industry Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and there are three, four or five corporations.

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

Just by way of information, were you aware that not all crown corporations have an obligation to develop a strategy?

Isn't that correct, Ms. Fraser?

[Sheila Fraser]

When we carry out the special reviews of crown corporations, which include a fairly in-depth audit every five years, we factor in environmental considerations. However, crown corporations are not obligated to produce a sustainable development strategy.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Fraser, welcome back.

Mr. Vaughan, congratulations and welcome to the committee. It is appreciated that you've come to the committee so early in your tenure, and it certainly won't be the last.

A sort of frame for my questioning today is around the advocacy of your role in terms of the tone and tenor of the conversation in the public that comes out of this place. I think this time is an extraordinarily critical time, and it has been for a number of years now, and the role you're playing is one important voice--often a voice in the wilderness--of accountability when it comes to the government's performance on the environment, which is obviously important to Canadians.

First of all, Ms. Fraser, I hope this statement wasn't vetted by anybody and I hope that no future statements ever face such a vetting by any spin doctors. Good.

Mr. Vaughan, we've had much debate--Ms. Fraser and this committee and individually--around the difference between advocacy and auditing: the advocacy of programs and capacity of programs to deliver, versus the traditional role of auditing the past, what's happened. It seems to me there's a spectrum, within auditors and between commissioners of the environment around the world, as to where they fall. Some are framed often as more traditional--the audit, the look back--and one by design of their role plays much more of an advocacy role on government policy. If you had to place yourself on that spectrum, where would you be?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

To refer back to the green ribbon report, I think I agree with their interpretation of this potential choice between either auditing or advocacy. I think that their recommendations essentially say that within the existing scope and mandate of the commissioner's office, there is a potential for advocacy in the context of promoting essentially good management of accountability, good management of a large number of federal programs related to environment and sustainable development. Also, there was scope within the existing mandate to use different practices--for example, identifying issues through studies, identifying methodologies, benchmarking best practices from elsewhere, both within Canada and internationally.

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

Let me perhaps make this specific, which might help me understand. The unfortunate thing with a lot of the terminology around this is that it becomes very vague for Canadians. Words get thrown around by politicians and those auditing the politicians, and it sometimes doesn't translate.

Take climate change as an example. You, as the commissioner, are auditing the government's performance on some measures they've done on climate change. A story on governments reporting to the United Nations--like the one that came up today--is now under investigation by the UN. It's connected to what you're auditing, that the government is failing to meet targets. At the same time, a piece comes forward that says an outside body--the UN, in this case--is raising serious questions about Canada's actual capturing of those numbers.

Do you see how your audit can stray over to “and the government going forward shall not do this any more”? This is causing the problem, and it becomes an advocacy role to correct it in the future, as opposed to a pure audit. Because what's happening right now, and I don't know if there is a fine line between these things....

I see you as a spokesperson, in a sense. It's as much about how you present your information as it is the information you are presenting. We've seen a spectrum of commissioners with very different styles, very different personalities, and that has an effect. That has an effect on their effectiveness and also on the effect of our committee and the government.

When I'm looking at something specific like that--and maybe this is something we develop over time--I'm trying to find out what your tendency is. Are you comfortable with some of the auditing we've seen from New Zealand or Great Britain--that while auditing says we see a government plan for the future, we have concerns about their management of the information, because we don't think they're going to get there. That's suddenly an advocacy role about the future. Does that bother you, as an auditor?

[Scott Vaughan]

I think that's probably going to be a longer discussion.

To take the example you used, in spring 2009 there's going to be a report from the office on Kyoto implementation. That report will look at issues related to the implementation of the existing obligations the federal government has taken in the Kyoto context. The report will not comment on the policies related to that issue. We will look at the extent of the implementation and whether it was done in a way that is credible under the existing obligations.

If there's a broader policy issue related to Kyoto, for example, I'm not an elected official. The policy issues related to the options would go to the members of Parliament and the elected members of government. These are substantive issues related to policy direction.

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

Let me quote something from someone who previously held the job:

Although widely used and even essential, the audit tool cannot all by itself create change within government administration. In the air of sustainable development, what is needed above all is education and collaboration, not solely auditing. And the very nature of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada does not permit this kind of work.

So we're talking about location of where it is that your work happens. This is important. And I agree with you, this is a longer conversation. But with respect to what I just read, do you agree with that statement?

[Scott Vaughan]

I probably would have to go back and look again. I think, though, that a good audit report is produced not only to show what has happened in the past but to provide guidance on correcting what is not working and to strengthen what is working.

I don't think you go through the process of auditing for some historical or academic reason; it's to provide the people involved in the implementation of policies with potential course corrections related to the information in the audit.

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

Let me ask you this, then. There was a question put to you about a current piece of legislation, which your predecessor commented on to this committee and said “I like this piece of legislation. I think it's helpful.” Is that not advocacy of policy?

I'm getting confused as to where the line is. This is a bill that doesn't yet exist. The questions were immediately put to the commissioner because he was in the bill; the role was in the bill. But then when questions were put about policy, to my mind--I'm trying to be objective--it very much became advocating: “I like this bill. We think this is a good bill.”

That presents, to me, confusion. When I put forward a question, “Do intensity targets work?”--because that is the government's plan going ahead--and the audit office says, “Well, we don't want to comment on government policy”, I'm confused. It's unpredictable what kind of response I'm going to get, if you follow my logic on this.

In one moment, I get, “This is a thing that does not yet exist, and I advocate for it, as commissioner.” And then I get, “Here is yet another thing that does not yet exist, but I'm hesitant, because it's a central platform in the government's plan, which has faced a great deal of criticism. I'm going to stay away from it.” What's the difference?

This might be unfair. I apologize. You're new to the job.

[Scott Vaughan]

No, no, on the contrary--