Evidence of meeting #16 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was policy.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thank you.
All I will do is fully endorse and support what Mr. Fauteux has just said. I have nothing meaningful to add.
5 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to quickly start with Mr. Fauteux.
You were cut off right before the end of our conversation about the resources and the expertise, and to your knowledge, whether the current Office of the Auditor General has that capacity in important, specialized work.
5 p.m.
Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual
The answer is sadly no, because the commissioner of the environment has suffered from what I mentioned is the chronic underfunding that has been afflicting the Auditor General for the last 10 years. In the same way that the number of audits per year has gone from 27 to 14, resources have shrunk across the board in the Office of the Auditor General, and the commissioner of the environment has not been protected from that shrinking of resources.
Whereas 10 years ago there was expert staff working full time with the commissioner of the environment, he no longer has that capacity, or at least not to the extent he used to, and now he has to go and find people to do specific jobs because they are not attributed to him on a full-time basis, and they do not have the expertise that is required to carry out the commissioner of the environment's work.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much.
I'll quickly go to Mr. Lindgren.
One of the things that Mr. Longfield had mentioned was the possibility of having some of this review of government mandates and policies in an advisory body function. The government has recently struck a net-zero advisory body. I'm curious about your thoughts, if that were the solution the government went with.
Maybe just talk about some of the dangers and some of the losses when it comes to the important work around the biodiversity crisis, the threats to fresh water, the impact on environmental health of human beings, that kind of thing.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
First of all, I'm a very strong believer in multi-stakeholder advisory panels or committees. It's a very important and credible source of information to government decision-makers. In fact, when I was on the environmental bill of rights task force, that in and of itself was an advisory committee that provided advice to the government of the day on whether we should have an EBR and what should be in it.
My concern about sloughing off some of these important duties to an unelected advisory panel, committee, council, or however you care to frame it, is that it will lack the profile, the legal powers and the functions that I would assign to an independent officer of Parliament.
There is room for advisory panels and councils, and so on, but we really need a stand-alone, high-profile, fully effective, independent officer of Parliament who's minding the environmental store.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
March 8th, 2021 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you; and thank you to all the witnesses for coming today.
As I'm listening to all of this, my fundamental question is that it almost sounds as though, if we were to go ahead and split this single department into two, magically there would be a whole pile of extra resources that would come, that would allow us to hire extra staff and would allow all this research and work to be done.
From the witnesses, is that what the expectation is, and is that realistic in the environment today?
5:05 p.m.
Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual
If I may start, I'm not counting on magic. I don't think it would magically happen. There would, obviously, need to be some exercise of political will to devote an adequate level of resources to the Auditor General for the Auditor General to carry out her important work and to the commissioner of the environment so he could carry out his important work. There's nothing magic about it. There's definitely something to be said for independence and autonomy as a prelude to adequate financial resourcing on a predictable, long-term basis.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
But if we look at history, you can argue whether climate is more important than finances, and we won't do that here, but arguably financial spending and accountability is a very big issue for government, and yet it seems like there hasn't been enough funding and enough resources for that.
What is there to lead you to think there would be not only funding for that but enough resources to do the other as well?
5:05 p.m.
Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual
I think the COVID crisis and the extraordinary government expenditures we have seen in the last year have shown us all that, where there is a will, there is a way.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
That's a great point, too, because does it not make sense that we would have to do an incredible amount of audit work on all of that excess spending and extra spending that was required because of COVID?
5:05 p.m.
Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual
That makes perfect sense, and that's a great job for the Auditor General.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
My background is accounting, and I know there's a lot of complexity in the way that books are kept in terms of the government. It seems to me that advising on policy is a very different skill set than looking into the numbers and whether there was value achieved for the policies that were defined.
I guess I'm just curious whether there are any comments on that and, if you have a separate department, can you have all those skills in one place?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Perhaps I will start off.
I think the answer is that you're right in the sense that giving the federal environmental commissioner both an auditing and a policy role will require a good skill set within the commissioner himself or herself and also within the staff. That's why I truly believe—I forget who said this earlier, but one of the panellists indicated—that you would need a good multidisciplinary staff in order to carry out these expanded duties. That, obviously, will require a sufficient budget as well.
I will take an extra step and say you're in good hands. I've known Mr. DeMarco for a number of years, and I'm fully confident that he will be able to carry out his role within the current mandate, but the question is whether it should be expanded, and if so, how and to what extent.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
I can almost hear Madam Hogan sitting in the background, but that's exactly what we have, a multidisciplinary team of people right now. It seems to me that duplicating that in another department is just going to create overlap and excess spending.
What do you think about that, Madame Le Quéré?
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
Yes. I think you need specific expertise to answer questions on the environment. You're right that you need policy expertise to provide policy advice, but identifying the policy need can be done by the same people who do the verification, for example, and then your advisory board that has just been put in place can be put to work to help identify and help shape the choices and the policy to be put in place.
I don't see that there is a contradiction here. I do see, though, that keeping things at status quo does not give the specific expertise you need to tackle environmental problems. It gives general expertise on how to write a policy, which is not enough to have policies that work until 2050.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses who have come today.
I want to ask a very general question so we can bring all your suggestions to some finite place.
Can each one of you describe what would need to be changed to implement the suggestions you have recommended today?
We'll start with you, Mr. Lindgren.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
You better go to somebody else; I hear my dog barking.
5:10 p.m.
Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual
I will speak in French, if that's okay with you.
The commissioner of the environment and climate change, as I recommend he be renamed, should have an autonomous and substantial budget that would enable him to have access to the scientific expertise needed under his mandate. He should also decide on his own what public and private organizations to report on. In addition, he should have the authority to obtain from departments and other public organizations all the information required for his investigations. Parliamentarians and Canadians should also be able to challenge him. Finally, he should have freedom of speech. All those recommendations should apply as soon as the commissioner would be considered an officer of Parliament and an independent officer of Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
We would need all feet in the same direction, control of staff, a budget that is sufficient, protected and our own, our own work program and accountability to Parliament, with government having a duty to respond.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thank you, sir.
I would only add that all of that would need to be set out in specialized, stand-alone legislation. This can't be done by tinkering with or amending the Auditor General Act. The new, independent federal commissioner needs his or her own statute, with all of the duties, functions and responsibilities set out.
To the point that was raised earlier, “Isn't this just pure duplication of what the Auditor General does?”, the answer is no. We're trying to give the federal commissioner a functionally different role, one that will extend or expand into policy. That's something that the Auditor General cannot and will not do under the existing legislation. It's not a duplication at all.
