Natural Resources Committee on June 20th, 2006

[John Affleck]

I could add another example, if you wish.

In 2005 we also looked at the implementation of the Canadian biodiversity strategy. This was first endorsed in 1996 by the federal, territorial, and provincial governments.

We first audited that in 1998. We called the audit off because there wasn't enough to look at. We returned in 2000. We returned in 2005, last year, and looked at it. A number of really significant and key commitments have not been met. For example, it still lacks a coherent implementation plan, there is no overall report to give an indication of the status of biodiversity in Canada, and commitments to improve Canada's capacity to understand the information related to that subject have not been met.

I point out to the committee that in terms of a response to our recommendation to get on with the job, the federal government indicated to us that they were planning to put a strategy and outcome-based framework in place by the fall of 2006. The committee might be interested in following up on that, as it impacts forestry.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Mr. Paradis, merci.

Mr. Tonks, is it, or...?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

That will be fine, Mr. Chairman; we're going to share the five minutes.

Mr. Arseneault, you had replied somewhat to my question. I was going to ask you about integration across the transport industry in terms of sustainable development--the evaluation, and an integrated plan. I'm not going to ask you that question, but I am going to ask you--or you, Ms. Gélinas--another question. It is in terms of your analysis becoming a working document for government policy as opposed to an audit that is reported and put on the shelf.

I'm going to relate, perhaps as a case in point, to the issue with respect to ethanol production and the real value-added with respect to cellulose and grain-based. From a policy perspective, that obviously has an integrated implication with agriculture and other silos of activity, if you'll pardon the pun. Using that as a case in point, to what extent do you monitor and evaluate the government's use of that information with respect to that particular policy initiative vis-à-vis ethanol?

[John Affleck]

Again, this is not something we undertook for the 2006 report, but as the commissioner pointed out, we have recently received a petition on this subject. The petitioner basically asked for justification on the Canadian government's policy on ethanol related to the environment and to energy consumption. The petitioner also inquired about whether a detailed life-cycle analysis had been done in terms of the anticipated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the production and the use of ethanol.

What we do sometimes is wait for the ministers involved, who are obligated to respond within 120 days. From time to time we'll take a look at the statements and commitments made in those responses, and we will follow up. So it is possible in the future that we would do some further work on that area.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll pass it over to my colleague.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to be joining this committee.

Welcome to the witnesses.

I'm just trying to learn as we go along here, but I would think that if your audit is going to have some integrity and credibility, it has to be taken seriously by the government and responded to appropriately by the government, and it should inform future decisions of government or paths that government would take.

In terms of climate change--because this has been a big debate now within the country and a big debate within the House of Commons--it seems like our colleagues on the other side of the House have said all of this is bad and for naught, and we're going to change and go in a different direction. It would seem prudent to me that they would at least wait for an audit of what was already taking place, or in some cases may not have been taking place, to inform a strategy.

Your report is not going to come down until the fall of 2006, as I understand it, but they're already planning for another plan in 2006. So how useful is the audit going to be in that particular context, and how difficult is it when you have what I would call major policy shifts on huge pieces of work that have been undertaken for some time? Are you just catching up and then it moves ahead? The audit should have more of an impact, I would think, if it's going to inform policy and help us make good decisions for the future.

I'd like to know what your comments are on that.

[Johanne Gélinas]

First, we started our audits on climate change 18 months ago, and we planned ahead of time. So by the end of this year we'll have a pretty good idea of the topics we would like to cover from 2008 to 2012. This is well planned in advance, and we know pretty well what we are looking for. So that was decided during a totally different context in this country.

You have to know that in the course of the audit, we don't do that in isolation. We are talking, discussing, and exchanging information with the departments. So my report will not come as a surprise to any of the bureaucrats in the city. They know pretty well, and usually what the department will do as soon as they know we are going after an issue like climate change and we are looking at some specific programs--for example, at NRCan--is that they will pay more attention to those same programs that we are auditing, and in that period of time, let's say a year, they may do a lot of things to improve their own programs if they have to. So they can work on the issue as we are doing the audit. Ideally, if progress had been made, we would be more than happy to report on that progress in our report.

That said, there's always a kind of looking backwards, because we look at what was done over a certain period of time. In this case, we have covered almost 10 years of work within the federal government on climate change, but there comes a time when we start thinking in terms of recommendations: based on the evidence we have gathered, what we should recommend to make sure the government will improve its implementation. That's only an example.

At that point we are starting to discuss with the department going more into looking forward, at what will need to be adjusted or done differently to get on the right path. At the end of it, the department will have to respond to our recommendations. So you will know what the plan is with respect to specific recommendations of this government in addressing climate change, based on the work that we have done.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Thank you, Ms. Gélinas.

Very briefly, Mr. Arseneault.

[Richard Arseneault]

Just to let you know, in addition to the work the commissioner has done on climate change, the Treasury Board Secretariat has also undertaken a program review of the federal government. They have the results of that, and we're told that the new government is using this information to make decisions. We have not audited that, but we were told that's the case.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Thank you, Mr. Arsenault.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Gélinas, gentlemen, thank you for appearing here today. In a way, you have rounded out our information session, and it is very interesting.

Your mandate involves auditing the performance of over 25 departments. I have already had the opportunity of meeting you when I was responsible for the environment portfolio together with Mr. Bigras. I remember an issue that we had discussed.

Can it be said today that all departments have truly completed their strategy development? Have they completed their action plan, designated the tools for evaluating their performance or advancing their goals?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I am not sure I understood your question. Are you talking about the sustainable development strategies or environmental monitoring systems?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

About the strategies and the systems.

[Johanne Gélinas]

I can give you some idea about the strategies. As for the systems

implemented in the departments. I will leave that to.... It's a work in progress.

In terms of the strategies, they are a work in progress. The departments have to review them every three years. They have to state publicly whether or not they reached their goals and set new ones.

So, over a three-year period, we are going to monitor progress on the most important commitments and report that to Parliament. Unfortunately, for most departments — there are exceptions — the sustainable development strategies are apparently a

compendium of business-as-usual activities.

Departments have not yet managed to make full use of this tool, which should really be an agent of change. They are wondering what else they can do to get on the path towards sustainable development. Unfortunately, to date, their activities would have taken place anyway, with or without the commitment to develop sustainable development strategies.

So we are trying to encourage greater use of these strategies so that they get to the heart of the matter, by making meaningful commitments rather than having activities like awareness-raising sessions for employees. They should set goals like, for example, deciding to go ahead with the purchase of green power, and all departments should respect them, measure progress and report.

[Neil Maxwell]

I would like to add two points.

Concerning the strategies, the commissioner has talked about developing good strategies. One of the things we also do in our audit work is make sure, once they're developed and once the minister tables them in Parliament, that the departments are really in fact living up to those commitments. A lot of our audit work is picking samples of commitments that they promised and finding out if they have delivered or not.

In this coming report we have a chapter, as has been mentioned, concerning the results of that work. In past years we found very mixed results. In some cases some very important action had been taken, and in other cases the departments had really dropped the ball on important commitments.

It's important to be clear that the government has a number of tools to achieve sustainable development. We've talked today about one in particular--the sustainable development strategies tabled every three years in Parliament--but there are other very important tools. One of those is strategic environmental assessment.

That process began in 1990, when cabinet directed departments to ensure that every time a new policy idea came forward to cabinet or just to the minister alone, the environmental aspects of it would be properly identified.

We looked at how well that whole process was working two years ago. We were very critical that departments had not taken it seriously, and we were quite concerned that a number of government decisions were being made without proper attention to the environmental aspects.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

In the world of auditing, in which you have had some involvement with corporate taxation and auditing, it has occasionally happened that people referred to an auditor before doing something with respect to financial information.

Do the people who have to list or prioritize strategies contact the Office of the Commissioner for advice? Do you provide people advice with before they take a position on a particular topic or particular approach?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We try as much as possible to avoid being perceived as advisors. Imagine what a tricky situation we would be in if, after giving some advice, something didn't work. They would say that it was the commissioner who advised them to do this or that. So we definitely keep things separate.

In terms of sustainable development and strategies, there was a void. The government was not showing any leadership. So the departments were developing sustainable development strategies and each one was going about it in its own way. For a few years, we more or less occupied that space by indicating to them what, in our opinion, constituted a good sustainable development strategy. We produced two documents on our expectations in terms of sustainable strategies. Then, we stopped doing that, because in our view, that was a departmental responsibility. They have to get together and develop their own strategies.

A committee was struck under the former government, but it never really delivered the goods. Environment Canada was clearly given a mandate to play a leadership role and to help departments set their priorities and implement them through individual strategies. That committee no longer exists.

Also, I don't know whether this relates to your question, but when we establish the subject of our audits, we do so with the help of a committee of experts from outside our office, in order to ensure that we are on the right track in terms of setting goals for the audit and results. We consult them twice in connection with an audit. So we get help from various experts, depending on the subject of the audit, who provide insight different from ours or that of the departments.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Monsieur Cardin, merci.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

One of the things that caught my interest today in the headlines, when I was glancing through them, was “Bureaucrats knew Kyoto unattainable: Public servants waiting for right time to admit failure”. The article talks about how the climate change policy points out that they knew this was an ongoing failure. My question to you is on this matter.

We knew for years that the Kyoto targets were completely unattainable and were a bit of a joke. What sort of time lag does your office have when it comes to trying to gather information such as this or gathering information about how far departments are? It's one thing if you can catch a department not meeting its environmental objectives a year or two after; it's easy to correct. But it's another thing five, ten...I mean, we're way off the targets now of the Kyoto goal.

I guess I'm asking for a question about effectiveness—how effective you view your department to be. Could you give me some examples about how effective, from a time perspective, you are at correcting problems you find in various departments?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Our job is not to correct the problems. Our job is to provide parliamentarians with bullet-proof information—facts we have gathered through the course of the audit. Then it's up to you. That's why it's so important to maintain a very good professional relationship, making sure that, based on the information we will provide to you soon, you can then ask those kinds of questions. As to why it has taken so long, we will give you some information, but you are the ones who can dig out and get more information.

And what we will have to report to you soon is still, I would say, very timely and relevant.

John.

[John Reed]

On the question of climate change, we reported that in 2001. We did an audit in 2001, and at that point were already identifying the fact that there was a gap between the actual emissions and the Kyoto targets. It's all there on paper, as Richard already discussed. Management deficiencies were identified. I think it's an illustration of how committees like this can use our work in the future and seize on it right away.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

My experience is that your information is generally—and again, you're fairly new to me—fairly timely. You don't have that big a time lag between the information you gather and when things start to veer off in whatever direction.

[Johanne Gélinas]

Just to give you an example with respect to the upcoming report, we will close the book, as we say, in the coming weeks. As long as we haven't sent the report to the publisher, if there is any new information, it will be stated in the report.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

So for this new report on climate change for the fall 2006, up to what time will information be taken? Will it be up to the end of the previous government or up till June 30? Until what date will it include information on previous climate change, or what period will it cover?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Our audit work has nothing to do with the government of the day. As I said earlier, we have almost covered a period of 10 years—even a little bit more than that. So we look way back to when the government started to negotiate Kyoto and put in place programs. We had a cut-off date of June 15, or last Friday.