House of Commons Hansard #263 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Martin Bartenstein, federal Minister of the Environment of the Republic of Austria.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, during question period, in an answer to a question from the member for St. Albert, in a very feeble attempt to justify the infrastructure program the finance minister said that it was justified on the basis that the member for Simcoe Centre kept writing letters requesting money.
While we cannot call a minister a fibber, I think we have to make sure that the truth comes out. The truth is that there was one letter written and it involved the private sector. That is the only letter that was written.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
With a very short preamble, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the government House leader what our legislative menu will be.
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am only going to make one statement right now.
The weekly business statement is as follows. We will continue today and tomorrow with Bill C-83, respecting the environmental auditor general; followed by Bill C-100, the financial institutions legislation; followed by Bill C-52, the public works and government services departmental reorganization.
On Monday we will begin with Bill C-108, the housing bill, and then return to the point on the list where we left off on Friday.
I would add to the list of bills for next week Bill C-99, the Small Business Loans Act amendments; Bill C-94, the fuel additives bill; Bill C-101, the transportation legislation; and Bill C-107, the British Columbia treaties bill.
Finally, Tuesday, November 28, and Thursday, November 30, shall be opposition days.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, in an earlier statement in the House an answer that I gave was qualified as feeble. My point of order is that it was in fact incredibly decisive and strong. In any event, I withdraw the s .
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
On a point of order, I have a question for the House leader of the government with regard to potential legislation coming before the House.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleague, you will recall that last Thursday we had a very brief exchange on this. Of course I will permit clarification of whatever is coming up. We do not usually do any dealing here on the floor, so I know that the question will be quite to the point.
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
Could the hon. House leader of the government indicate whether there is going to be any consideration with regard to legislation on unemployment insurance on the list he gave today?
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, legislation on that topic was not on the list I read out today.
All I can suggest to my hon. friend is that he keep an eye on the Order Paper.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to speaking on third reading of Bill C-83 because of the debate we had last Monday on an amendment we tabled that would have deleted paragraphs (a) to (h) in clause 21(1) of the bill. I very much wanted to clarify a fundamental difference between members of the Bloc Quebecois and other members in this House.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are sovereignists and we come from Quebec. In other words, we support Quebec's sovereignty and are opposed to any form of intrusion in its jurisdictions, while seeking to expand those jurisdictions until Quebecers decide to have their own country.
Obviously we do not have the same outlook as the other members of this House, who are federalists. When a bill is tabled, we do not consider or analyze the bill in the same way the Liberals, Reform members and the remaining Conservatives do, who are federalists. They still believe in federalism but we do not. They believe in intrusion and imposition but we do not.
It is only normal that we should see bills like the one we are discussing today as potential for encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions, while the other parties do not see it that way.
The deep-seated convictions of each and everyone of us mean that our points of view are different. We always try to assess the short and longer term impact of legislation on the prerogatives of the provinces. And when we consider the longer term effects, we feel that Bill C-83 will have a negative impact on the prerogatives of Quebec and thus on the environment.
From our point of view, the environment must be a provincial responsibility if we are to protect it, preserve it and, in many cases, restore it. We think it is clear the provinces have come a long way and today have most of the responsibilities in this area.
It is up to them to respond to their people and to pass effective legislation and set up programs and projects to preserve the environment. Many are already doing so, with good results. Quebec has assumed its responsibilities and done its homework. Furthermore, Quebec has led the way in a number of areas, including environmental assessment.
Looking at the federal side, there is not much to get excited about. The environmental effects are very watered down, and interest in the environment is not all that high and is a relatively recent thing. On the other hand, what is most remarkable about the federal government, the Liberal government in particular, is its great desire to become the saviour of the environment and to push aside the provinces more and more. It does this by riding over them roughshod, duplicating legislation, regulations, programs. The effects of this desire to interfere and to take over the helm at any price are very harmful to both the environment and the economy.
Bill C-83 has not escaped this constantly increasing desire by the feds to throw their weight around in the environmental area, as in a number of others. I wanted to explain this fundamental difference between us and the other members of this House because of what the hon. member for Davenport said about me last Monday. He wondered, and I quote: "-is it perhaps that the member for Laurentides badly needs a psychiatrist to remove her obsession with federal-provincial relations, her obsession with seeing under
every chair a federal monster, a federal presence which may disrupt the quiet life of the people in her riding?"
I personally feel that the member for Davenport has defined our fears very well. I could not have depicted the federal government as well myself. And if he defines himself in that way, then surely the definition must be an apt one. Thank you, dear colleague, for that revealing definition.
You will understand that following such a definition, we will see the federal monster not under the chair, as you said, but on the chairs in front of us.
I am rather in a jocular mood today. I have to be, otherwise I would probably have to see a psychiatrist as the hon. member for Davenport suggested. As for me, I would never dare to suggest that my colleague from Davenport consult his geriatrician because of his retarded and old-fashioned ideas. I respect him to much to make such a suggestion. Yet, it is obvious that he looks at Bill C-83 with the eye of a federalist while I see it as a sovereignist.
However, the hon. member goes a bit too far when he accuses us of being against the health of Canadians, against the integration of environment and economy, against the protection of ecosystems and against the prevention of pollution. This is getting close to demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty.
Auditor General ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Dear colleague, you used the expression "intellectual dishonesty". Perhaps you could consider using words that are more appropriate. I wish you would. I a not asking you to withdraw but simply to reconsider.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Very well. Thank you.
We, sovereignists are as much if not more interested in ecology than most Liberal, Reform and Conservative members, the federalists in this House. To say that we are against the environment, in particular against sustainable development, because we do not support bill C-83 is going a bit far.
We are the ones who initially proposed the creation of a position of environment auditor within the auditor general's office. The minister took up the Bloc's idea and introduced the bill.
Besides, the auditor general, Denis Desautels, said in committee that he was already performing this role and could continue do to so if given more resources.
This seemed to us the best solution, the most efficient, the least expensive and the most logical. But the Liberals went overboard on this. They stuck doggedly to the promise they had made in the red book and suggested the creation of an independent office of the Commissioner of the Environment.
They suggested furthermore to renew the mandate of the auditor general in this area, even to give him additional resources. In other words, the Liberals wanted two independent offices, two auditors to perform the same task. What a fine way to manage. The Liberals wanted to create expensive and inefficient overlaps within the federal machinery itself.
So, if they are advocating creating duplication in their own house, one can certainly understand our reluctance and concern as to the commitment of these same people not to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. One can imagine the chaos and the administrative mess created by two environmental auditors. Such a situation would have been intolerable, and detrimental to the environment itself.
The Minister of the Environment-the best we ever had according to the member for Davenport, who is very humble since he himself has been a Minister of the Environment before-was clever enough to follow through. She introduced Bill C-83 at first reading stage on April 25. At that time, we were in favour of the bill.
Later on, in committee, everything changed completely. Eager to lay it on, the Liberals suggested amendments that clearly demonstrated their annoying tendency to think that environmental protection is an exclusive federal role. When these amendments were tabled, for that matter, they were in for a bumpy ride, in fact it almost degenerated into a farce. At first, the Liberals moved amendments and voted on them. Next, relying on a rule rarely invoked, they cancelled these same amendments only to move new ones and take another vote. I want to point out that no amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois carried.
So, the whole amendment stage was marked by confusion and turmoil. It seemed that the Liberals themselves could not understand each other; they appeared to be torn between publics servants and politicians. That resulted in the Liberal amendment that modifies the bill by adding section 21.1, from (a) to (h). This added clause is what had led us to fear increased federal interference in provincial jurisdiction, and that is why we reject this bill. Liberals and Reformers are doing their best to convince us that this is not the case, but we see things differently.
We have been called obsessed, paranoid, we have been told we have a phobia against federalism. Fine. We have every right to feel that way, considering the environmental record of the federal government. We would not want the government to do more when it cannot even reach its own objectives in its own jurisdiction.
There are examples. The issues dealt with by the Liberals in the last two years and more clearly demonstrate that they are far from keeping their red book promises and that the minister, whom the member for Davenport has been praising for the last few days, failed on all counts. Indeed, criticism levelled by environmentalists at the Minister of the Environment, who is so very comptent
according to the member for Davenport, has been getting harsher and harsher, lately.
Environmentalists, the provinces, experts and reporters are forthright in their assessment of the minister's work and action. Disappointment is felt everywhere. The minister's abilities are regularly called into question. Bill C-83 is itself a telling example of the government's weakness. The red book proposed an independent auditor. Liberals in the standing committee proposed the same. The result is that the minister is meeting them halfway: half result, half failure. And now the Liberals are bragging about their minister's accomplishments.
One would have to be really blind or totally soft in the head to congratulate the minister on this issue. The least we can say is that the Liberals are a spineless lot.
Another issue is endangered and threatened species. If I were a Liberal, a federalist, I would find that the minister's position on this is very poor, and that her plan of action leaves much to be desired. In fact, the member for Davenport himself has tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-275, which is aimed at protecting species. Is the very competent minister supporting this bill? Why is that legislation not part of the government agenda?
We, Quebec sovereignists, are very happy with the minister's half measures in this area. In Quebec, we are quite capable of taking care of our species. But if I were a Liberal, a federalist, I would not find that the minister's performance in this area is not very good. The greenhouse gas issue? Another issue where the minister is incapable of reaching her objectives. The provinces seem increasingly to want to distance themselves from the minister on this issue. The same holds true for the whole issue of harmonization with the provinces.
The provinces do not seem to like the minister's heavyhandedness, as she is more intent on imposing the federal will than harmonizing. That is another failure of the Liberals and their very competent minister.
As for the CEPA, the Canadian Environment Protection Act, we are still waiting for an answer from the minister. She is late, and that in spite of the fact the committee clearly asked that she meet the deadline. Is the minister really looking after her responsibilities? I will let you answer that question. However, to ask the question is to answer it.
The Irving Whale , MMT, federal BCPs, etc., all these issues have something in common. Of course, they fall under the responsibility of the environment minister, but mainly they stand out as failures or as very sensitive issues whose management can only be described as incompetent and dominated by petty politics. Are the members opposite asleep? Are they not aware of all the mistakes their minister is making and of her inability to run her department? How distinguished Liberal members, true environmentalists albeit federalists, unfortunately, can lavish such praise on the minister is beyond me.
From a sovereignist perspective, Bill C-83, as explained earlier, poses a very real threat of federal intrusion into a provincial area of jurisdiction. Looking very closely at clause 21.1, one can see this clearly.
Dealing at first with sustainable development, this clause refers further on, through subclauses a to h , to several items that are under provincial jurisdiction. True, the Liberals claim that these are merely general goals related to sustainable development. We think there is more to it than that if you look beyond the words and this list of goals. Over the long term, these goals will encourage federal departments to intrude upon the jurisdictions of other government levels. The fact that a commissioner will measure the performance of departments against these goals in their programs or projects will be an incentive for them to do more and to get better results, even if they overstep their own area of jurisdiction.
Thus, under clause 21.1, a department encroaching on an area of provincial jurisdiction will get a positive appraisal from the federal commissioner. There was certainly nothing else to be expected from the Liberal committee members. True to themselves, they repeated the same arguments they had put forward when we were studying the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Sustainable development, a concept which the Liberals use a great deal to crowd out the provinces, is an ideal all societies should strive for.
Let us be clear. What is at stake here is not the validity of this principle, but the way it is implemented.
The Bloc Quebecois not only recognizes the validity of the principle, but also the need, not to say the urgent need, to translate it into concrete measures.
We believe this principle should be implemented by the provinces because they have the overriding jurisdiction over the environment. It is up to the provinces to promote the conditions needed for sustainable development.
In a federal system, the principle of sustainable development takes on a new dimension, that is respect for jurisdictions and areas of authority. Obviously, the squandering of both financial and human resources in order to maintain a dual structure, is in no way sustainable.
However, clause 21.1 provides for the commissioner to monitor the progress of the various departments, by taking into consideration criteria which clearly come under areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Clause 21.1 (a) deals with the integration of the environment and the economy. In fact, this part of the commissioner's mandate can turn into subsidy programs for suppliers or targeted purchase programs. For example, the Department of Public Works and Government Services can set so-called ``environmental'' standards for some very specific purchase programs.
Let us say that the department wants to buy 10,000 sheets of plywood, but that the award of this contract is subject to some sustainable development standards stipulated in the purchase program. The commissioner comes in, does his job, examines the purchase program and realizes that the program does not meet some objectives, such as maintenance of the resource, the wood fibre used, or that the process used causes too much pollution.
In other words, the environment commissioner assesses the purchase program and concludes that the standards do not promote sustainable development. In his report, he then urges the department to upgrade its criteria.
But, in this case involving the purchase of sheets of plywood, the whole industry comes under the provincial jurisdiction, thus under provincial criteria. What will happen if the federal criteria are not compatible with the Quebec criteria? What will industries do in such a mess? Who is better able to impose criteria and standards? The federal minister, under the guidance of the commissioner, or the Quebec minister?
There is no doubt in my mind that the provinces, which already have jurisdiction in this matter, are in a better position to manage their own affairs, that is, in this case, the forest industry and its pollutants.
This situation could occur in each and every department. One can easily imagine the jurisdictional problems that such situations could cause. This kind of back-door underhanded interference is unacceptable. I would like to hope that federalists will be bright enough to understand this situation and recognize that it is quite probable.
Other examples show that the federal government has used its spending power several times to launch programs or projects in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In many cases, after a few months, the federal government withdrew and let the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, foot the bill or assume responsibility for cancellation.
Item (b) is about protecting the health of Canadians. That makes the people on the other side jump and rant on about us, saying that the Bloc is against protecting the health of Canadians and Canadians being in good shape.
What we want is for Quebecers, Ontarians and Albertans to be in good health. Health is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It incumbent upon the provinces to prevent environmental degradation from threatening public health.
How far could the federal government go with this clause? It is a question the Liberals should answer.
Once again, duplication of standards and competition with provincial standards are inefficient and costly, for governments as well as for businesses and individuals. Again, the federal government opens the door to further jurisdictional quarrels.
Considering the crystal clear position of provinces on this issue, it is difficult to understand the attitude of the federal government. This is further proof that the Liberals have completely failed to grasp the repeated requests for change made by Canadians and Quebecers.
Clause 21.1(c) deals with the protection of ecosystems. As owners and managers of the land, the provinces have jurisdiction over the management of ecosystems. For example, to support this role, Quebec has created 17 national parks. It also adopted legislative tools to ensure the protection of biodiversity.
Provinces that have not done this must take action and meet the demands of the international community, which, for example, has criticized, in the OECD report, the environmental performance of Canada in the protection of ecosystems.
Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, is an object of concern for the protection of ecosystems. With this bill, the minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the saviour of our nation and of our turbot, strips the Minister of the Environment of her jurisdiction over this area.
He says that he wants to take full responsibility for the protection of ecosystems. We can well imagine the commissioner asking the minister of Fisheries to impose standards on a municipal waste water treatment plant because it pollutes an ecosystem where specific species of fish live. But municipal waste waters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. Is it not a direct interference with provincial jurisdiction?
Paragraph ( d ) is about meeting Canada's international obligations. The majority of these international commitments were made on behalf of the provinces, which are sometimes the last to be informed of Canadian positions. That goes to show the contempt in which the provinces are held by the federal government.
For example, Canada made serious mistakes by committing to reduce greenhouse gases to an extent far greater than what some of the most directly concerned provinces would have accepted. These are a few things that make us doubt the will of the federal government to respect the provinces. Section 21.1 of Bill C-83 is evidence of the contrary.
Under the guise of environmental protection objectives, the federal government is encroaching further on provinces' jurisdictions. I would also like to say a few words about the opportunity this bill gives individuals and groups to put pressure through petitions. Allow me to be sceptical about the effectiveness of these petitions, which will be treated the same way they are treated now by the government: they will simply be tabled in the House. Obviously petitions do not change anything and do not influence anybody, including ministers.
As I have said before, lobbyists and ministers go hand in hand and petitions are an exercise in futility. It is ridiculous to claim that the petition tabling process provided for in Bill C-93 will be a formidable weapon for the protection of the environment. The minister has not reinvented the wheel with this idea.
To conclude my remarks, I will say this: the commissioner of the environment must not encourage or even support this offhand attitude that characterizes federal interventions as a whole. I would like to read to you an excerpt from a document on the impact of federalism, published by the Quebec government in August 1995, and I quote: "Quebec's effectiveness and its ability to meet its objectives are increasingly hindered by the intransigence shown by the federal government in areas such as environmental assessment, the inconsistency of its interventions in relation to those of Quebec, including the sudden elimination of grant program funding and regulatory duplication in the pulp and paper and mining industries, the derogatory remarks contained in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and the fact that the federal government is forcing the adoption of its strategies in areas that should largely be under provincial jurisdiction, such as toxic substances, pollution prevention and sustainable development."
The role of the commissioner of the environment is not to promote duplication. On the contrary, he should encourage the various levels of government to respect each other's areas of jurisdiction. By giving so explicitly to the commissioner of the environment the mandate to monitor the extent to which sustainable development objectives are met, members of the committee have unduly politicized the role of the commissioner. We hope that, in the medium term, the use he will make of this mandate will have no impact on his credibility and his impartiality.
Auditor General ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
My colleagues, for the first three intervenors there will be no questions and comments.
Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-83, which will amend the Auditor General Act.
Should this bill go on from this House to the other place and be given royal assent, Canada will be the proud owner of a brand new environmental commissioner, so it is said. The commissioner will have all the bells and whistles of the limousine, yet little gas to drive the wheels. The hands of the commissioner will be tied to the auditor general, who will ultimately have the final say on everything the commissioner does.
I want to read a promise from the Liberals' red book on page 64:
Our second task will be to appoint an Environmental Auditor General, reporting directly to Parliament, with powers of investigation similar to the powers of the Auditor General.
I want to briefly compare this promise to what is proposed in Bill C-83. The red book promises that the environmental auditor general would report directly to Parliament. Bill C-83 has the commissioner reporting to Parliament through the auditor general under his office, which is hardly what one would call direct.
Reformers believe that the environment should be protected. We believe there is a place for critical review of what the government is doing with respect to the protection of the environment. It is our wish that this person be objective and independent as well as critical. It is also our wish that this person fit within fiscal reality.
Some Liberal members across the floor may think I am referring to exactly what is in Bill C-83, but I suggest that they read the bill a little more closely.
The commissioner cannot be an independent figure. In fact the commissioner might as well be a clerk of the auditor general. In other words, the commissioner is simply a staff member of the auditor general's office and subject to the larger pressures and priorities of that office.
I want to reassure members of the House that Reform is not opposed to the internal structure of the bill. We are simply opposed to the fact that money is being spent on a lot of status building trappings for a person whose job is already performed by the auditor general.
During the environment committee's clause by clause consideration of the bill, the Reform Party proposed that any reference to the word "commissioner" be dropped and replaced by the term "auditor general". I was not surprised to see that our amendment was voted down. It would be a cardinal sin, would it not, for any government member to vote in favour of an opposition amendment. We know how the petulant Prime Minister likes to punish his members.
I believe our amendment would have strengthened the bill in efficiency as well as cost effectiveness. Allow me to explain that point.
We all know that the auditor general makes reports on how the government is undertaking certain environmental initiatives. Most recently, in his 1994 report, the auditor general reported on the environmental partners fund and the ice services branch of the Atmospheric Environmental Service. In the 1995 report Mr. Desautels reported on environmental management systems and environmental hazardous wastes. Allow me to briefly go through the report on hazardous wastes from the May 1995 report. The auditor general cites background information, audit objectives, observations and recommendations on the storage and destruction of PCBs.
It is no secret to Canadians that as a country we have a tremendous problem with PCB waste. We have been stockpiling the contaminated wastes for years. Now we are trying to get rid of it at the lowest possible cost. I read recently that Canadian companies hold a total of 127,025 tonnes of PCBs at 3,216 storage sites across the country. This number includes 495 federal sites containing 5,206 tonnes.
This is outrageous. What is even more scandalous is the fact that the government continues to do little about it. The minister may talk of studies that are being done, but studies are not going to help the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia, home of one of Canada's most polluted industrial wastelands. The Sydney tar ponds are presently contaminated by over 700,000 tonnes of toxic chemicals, including PCBs, coal tar, volatile aromatics, acid drainage and raw sewage. The minister says that progress is being made. Yet to date less than 90 tonnes of waste have been incinerated, not even 1 per cent.
We are not talking about storage sites holding newspapers or pop cans waiting to be recycled. These are sites holding a substance banned in Canada in the late 1970s. It is a dangerous toxic site and it is harmful to health.
In many communities laden with a PCB problem, a steady rise in the cancer rate is not uncommon. In fact Sydney is now known as Canada's cancer capital, with a rate almost three times the national average.
The auditor general's report on managing hazardous waste outlines the role Environment Canada should play in the management of PCBs. It states the following:
The Department provides the federal voice at CCME and federal leadership in the development and implementation of federal-provincial initiatives to regulate the use of PCBs and the storage and destruction of PCB wastes. The Department also spearheads the federal part of the national initiative by co-ordinating the activities of federal owners of PCBs and providing advice to both headquarters and regional levels on the storage, transportation and treatment of PCB waste.
In May 1994 the auditor general put forward his report on the management of hazardous waste. Now, one year and six months later, what has the federal government done to improve the PCB problem? Nothing. What is the government going to do? I am open to hear all the answers; however, I believe they will perhaps maintain the status quo. Again, the status quo really is nothing. I doubt that a commissioner will make much difference.
The auditor general clearly spelled out for the government that PCB sites need to be cleaned up. How much more can I stress the point the auditor general made? He did not say it would be simply a good idea to clean up the sites. Rather, he stated that it was essential in order that the health of Canadians would not be put in jeopardy.
The government did not respond to the report. Therefore, if the government is clearly not acting on the auditor general's reports, I want to know what will be so special about the reports that will be written by the commissioner that will make the government act. Perhaps when we have time for questions and comments some hon. members from the government benches will be able to enlighten me on how they would be more apt to follow the warnings of the commissioner when they do not now follow those of the auditor general.
Bill C-83 will give us an environmental commissioner, which we are told will whip the government into shape with respect to environmental issues. That is something the auditor general has apparently been trying to do.
The bill outlines that the commissioner will have several tasks to undertake. One of those tasks is the handling of petitions. A resident of Canada will now be able to file a petition concerning an environmental matter in the context of sustainable development. The commissioner would then forward it to the appropriate minister for whom the petition was intended. The recipient minister would then be required to acknowledge receipt of the petition within 15 days. In addition, that same minister would be required to respond to the petition within four months. In the bill it notes that the four-month period might be extended by the minister if the petitioner and the auditor general were both notified that it would not be possible to respond within the allotted four months.
What the bill is really saying is that we need legislated permission for someone to write a complaint letter. Maybe with this new wrinkle the minister might even answer the mail.
Another duty of the new commissioner will be to monitor whether or not federal departments have met the objectives set out in their sustainable development strategies. The bill's amendment to section 24 would require that each federal department prepare a sustainable development strategy and table it in the House of Commons. Departments will have to table their strategies within
two years of the bill coming into force. After that, strategies would have to be updated every three years.
In a nutshell, this will be the job description of the new environmental commissioner within the auditor general's office. In my opinion, the tasks themselves are reasonable. The monitoring of departments in terms of sustainable development makes sense, especially when the Ministry of the Environment has failed to do its job on this score. The accepting and passing on of petitions is good as well. It is essential that constituents know that the petitions they file are being reviewed and acted on. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the bill. While the bill creates this high profile commissioner, it gives the person no independent power. That option was rejected by the government.
I mentioned that the job description in the bill was reasonable, and I believe that monitoring may make a difference. However, there is no need to create a commissioner to follow through on these objects when the auditor general still has the final say, and his officials have been doing the job for some time.
I believe that all of the above mentioned responsibilities could be taken on by the auditor general and be performed effectively and efficiently on a regular basis if he were given the resources. However, I can clearly see why the Minister of the Environment chose to go the route she did. It makes it look as if the government is moving ahead with its environmental responsibilities and fulfilling this longstanding promise. I believe we call this window dressing.
We are in a time of fiscal crisis. The deficit is out of control and things appear to be getting worse instead of better. We need to be tightening our belts instead of loosening them. Government departments need to be amalgamated and consolidated to streamline services. We need to save money at every turn.
The same applies to the issue we are discussing today in the bill. While the ideas are reasonable, the process is not. The duties of the environmental commissioner should be part of the auditor general's regular duties. The auditor general could easily expand and juggle his staff to help in the monitoring of government departments and the transferring of petitions from constituent to minister.
Such a small ordinary solution would not make the minister look environmentally green among her international cohorts. The Liberals overreaching undeliverable promises are now revealed. This is exactly the fundamental problem with the thinking of the government. Image seems to be everything.
Let me inform the Minister of the Environment of what I am hearing from my constituents about how governments should run. They want government to function without the flare and the Cadillac style. They want a government that is fiscally responsible and accountable. They also want an environment minister who puts environmental results at the top of the agenda within a fiscally responsible framework.
The bill creates redundancy. I have never heard where redundancy was a synonym for responsibility.
In May 1994 the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report entitled "The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development". This was the result of many long hours of hearing witnesses and reviewing documentation. I have highlighted some very interesting observations, primarily some from the comments made by the auditor general, Mr. Desautels. He told the committee that his office has for many years "been carrying out much of what would be the main audit responsibilities of an environmental auditor general".
The auditor general also stated that the office, referring to the current auditor general's office, will ensure that in carrying out its responsibilities it makes a positive contribution through audit to the protection and improvement of the national and global environment.
In my reading of the standing committee's report my conclusion was that the auditor general also thinks that his office could handle the increased responsibility and assume the role of monitoring the sustainable development strategies of federal departments.
I want the House to hear the six points the auditor general made when he appeared before the committee on why his office could continue to audit environmental sustainable development issues without any commissioner.
First, there would be no need for a new bureaucracy as an audit infrastructure already exists in the office of the auditor general. It would be less costly to the taxpayer as the office already has the structure in place to provide appropriate training, carry out research, develop methodology and carry out audit work.
Second, the independence, objectivity and credibility of the office of the auditor general are already established.
Third, there would be no confusion or duplication of roles as there might be with a new office of the environmental auditor general.
Fourth, the principles of sustainable development would be reinforced in that the environmental issues are audited together with economic and social ones.
Fifth, one auditor would create less disruption in the organization being audited if an additional external audit were also at work.
Sixth, the auditor general's office through its existing relationships with provincial legislative auditors can promote concurrent and/or joint federal-provincial audits of multi-jurisdictional environmental issues. This could help to overcome some of the
problems related to the division of federal and provincial powers concerning environmental matters.
There is no question that the auditor general could undertake a more expansive role. He has said it to members of the standing committee. More important, if we were to ask the average person on the street we would discover that the vast majority is totally opposed to new levels of bureaucracy.
My constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby feel there is already far too much bureaucracy in government. When they find out that the government is passing legislation to add another level, my office phone might ring off the hook.
I refer to another important statement in the committee's report which reflects exactly what the Reform proposed in clause by clause consideration in committee:
-it would appear that the Auditor General Act does not need to be amended in order for the auditor general, on his own volition, to expand his audit activities in the areas of environmental and sustainable development auditing.
On the other hand, the act will have to be amended if the government wishes to make environmental and sustainability auditing a mandatory activity. The committee members were of the opinion that the Auditor General Act should be amended to this effect.
The Reform Party believes in sustainable development. We believe that through responsible economic development and the economic capacity that results, the environment will be sustained for all Canadians to enjoy.
Let me also say that the Reform Party supports the federal government taking leadership in developing a new discipline of integrating economics and the environment. However, while we support the truest definition of sustainable development we also support going about change in the most economical and pragmatic way possible.
Bill C-83 is definitely not cost effective. The installation of the environmental commissioner could cost upwards of $5 million in the next few years. We should consider the amount that was spent by the auditor general's office in 1993. In this year $4.5 million or 7.5 per cent of the entire auditor general's budget was spent on audits of programs and activities of the federal government.
I do not believe that the activities of the commissioner will need $5 million to operate. If the auditor general's office were to get just a portion of that amount, I am sure it would be able to hire the appropriate staff and perform the functions of the commissioner very admirably. However, we know it is about prestige and status. Prestige will be bought with a huge no cut contract for some so-called superstar and his or her appropriate entourage.
I cannot support a bill that does not take economic matters into consideration. If the government were serious about doing the right thing, it would have accepted Reform's proposal to get rid of the aspect of commissioner and hand over the responsibilities to the auditor general. Unfortunately such was not the case.
The environmental community and the Liberals when in opposition wanted a completely independent watchdog of the government concerning environmental matters. They saw the policy need and the need related to control, lines of accountability and the reporting structure. The independent commissioner was to have meaningful investigative powers and was intended to embarrass and expose laxity, rule breaking and poor administration on environmental matters. Now that the Liberals are in government the red book's high sounding phrases are only phrases. The bill it has now brought forward as a government is much less than what it promised.
The decision has been made: no independent commissioner or environmental auditor general. If we are not to have one, why not facilitate the auditor general's office with a little more resources and some enhanced legislative mandate and encourage him to get on with it? Not the Liberals; they want it both ways.
There will be business as usual but the bill also creates a new title under auditor general who has a position identified and set out with legislative status. With a magic wand we have an environmental commissioner. There are great press release opportunities, a high profile appointment and international advertising for the position. I wonder if the superstar contract will be larger than the boss to whom he reports, the auditor general.
If we have to spend more on environmental auditing, it should give the auditor general some resources and an enhanced mandate. It should not try to fool the public into thinking that it has something that was promised. The government should do one or the other. I can imagine the morale problems these new favoured environmental kids will cause in the regular office of the auditor general.
The bill does not make sense from a public administration point of view. The whole exercise as constituted is not likely to be good dollar value. The bill tries to take things both ways, but no one is fooled. Either we have a real auditor general for the environment or we do not.
If it is to be a subset and a listed function of the current auditor general, let us be forthright about it. The expensive optics game of the bill is out of sync with what the country wants and needs. Whom are we trying to impress? Is it the public or maybe the senior deputy ministers of various ministries of the crown who have failed so far to fulfil their environmental duty under the law?
I am not buying it and I do not think the public will either. When Reformers are the ministers, the auditor general report will be regarded and acted on quickly and there will not be any overpaid superstar commissioner.
Jean Payne Liberal St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-83. The Liberal Party red book stated that the government would provide national environment and economic agendas. We also said that one of our priorities would be to appoint an environmental auditor general who would report to Parliament directly and would have powers of investigation similar to those of the auditor general. Bill C-83 fulfils this commitment and does even more.
Bill C-83 demonstrates that the government is serious about environmental and sustainable development, that we are willing to change the way government does business, and that government is not afraid to be held publicly accountable for what it does or does not do.
Federal government policies and operations have an impact on the decisions of Canadians, on the economy and on the environment. It is critical therefore that environmental and sustainable development considerations are integrated in government decision making. By getting its house in order the federal government can actively promote the shift to sustainable development throughout Canadian society. This is what Bill C-83 is all about.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development deserves a large share of the credit for the bill. The committee examined the government's red book commitment to establish an environmental equivalent to the auditor general. It recommended the establishment of a commissioner of environment and sustainable development. It provided valuable input at report stage when it made several recommendations to improve the bill.
Bill C-83 explicitly incorporates environmental and sustainable development in the Auditor General Act. It would also give the auditor general the explicit legal mandate to include environmental effects alongside the traditional considerations of economy, effectiveness and efficiency among the considerations he uses to determine the observations he will bring to the attention of the House of Commons.
Bill C-83 will also provide the federal government with leadership in making the shift to sustainable development. The amendments will proactively promote sustainable development across all federal departments.
Under the act ministers will be required to table in the House sustainable development strategies that include their departments' activities and plans of action to further sustainable development. Departments will also be required to update their strategies every three years and ministers to table updates in the House.
Bill C-83 will authorize the auditor general to forward petitions on environmental matters from the public to the responsible ministers. These ministers must respond within a specified timeframe.
The amendments I have just mentioned are significant in and of themselves but the bill goes much further. It creates a truly independent commissioner of environment and sustainable development. The commissioner will be established within the office of the auditor general. This will strengthen the role of the commissioner, ensuring independence and greatly enhancing the auditing of the government's environmental performance. The office of the auditor general has clout. It is independent from government. It is well respected and has solid expertise that can be put to use at once.
There is another advantage to the innovation. Within the work of the auditor general issues of environment and sustainable development will be integrated directly with economic considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable development is all about.
To ensure his independence as an effective critic of government the commissioner will be appointed by the auditor general. The commissioner will be the auditor general's right hand person, helping him perform all his duties in so far as they relate to environmental and sustainable development.
The commissioner will monitor and report annually to the House on any aspects of sustainable development, environmental, economic or social, where they merit attention. These issues would include the extent to which departments are implementing their sustainable development action plans as set out in their strategies; the extent to which these action plans are effective and departments are achieving their sustainable development objectives; and the number, subject matter and status of petitions received by ministers.
The annual green report of the commissioner will not be the only report to the House on the government's sustainable development and environmental performance. The auditor general, assisted by the commissioner, may also report on environmental matters in his traditional reports to the House.
These amendments are historic and unprecedented. They will have far reaching implications for the way the federal government does business. They ensure that no matter who the auditor general happens to be, environment and sustainable development will have a high profile in the work of the office. They will provide leadership on sustainable development by proactively promoting and operationalizing sustainable development across federal departments and across economic sectors of the country. They will hold the government fully accountable to the public for its leadership and progress in making the shift to sustainable development.
The government has taken a red book commitment and engaged Parliament and Canadians in fulfilling it. Contrary to what the Bloc member who spoke said, it was a commitment in our red book and not one of their ideas.
I look forward to Bill C-83 becoming law and to the appointment of a strong and independent commissioner.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.
This bill seeks to achieve five specific objectives:
First, to ensure that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of Commons.
Second, to provide for the appointment-as suggested by the Bloc Quebecois-of a Commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.
Third, to impose requirements for responding to petitions received by the auditor general about federal environmental matters in the context of sustainable development.
Fourth, to provide for monitoring and reporting to the House of Commons on the activities of departments and the extent to which they have met the objectives and implemented the plans set out in their sustainable development strategies, and for reporting to the House of Commons on petitions.
Fifth, to require that each department's sustainable development strategies be prepared and tabled in the House of Commons.
From a technical point of view, if this bill is passed, a number of measures will have to be taken.
First, an adequate definition of what is meant by "sustainable development" will be necessary.
Second, the mandate of the Commissioner of the environment and sustainable development will have to be properly defined.
Third, we will have to ensure that the process for responding to petitions will adequately meet the requirements of the citizens who submit these petitions.
Finally, we will have to ensure that all departments have sustainable development strategies and that they meet the objectives set therein. This means that a major structure to monitor the activities of all departments will have to be put into place.
I said earlier that the first objective of Bill C-83 was to ensure that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of Commons. In order to achieve this goal, all stakeholders must agree on a single definition of what sustainable development really means.
Bill C-83 includes such a definition; it says that sustainable development means "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
It is surprising, to say the least, that the Minister of the Environment decided to include this definition in the bill to amend the Auditor General Act, but that she has not yet included it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act itself.
In her speech to introduce this bill in the House of Commons on September 18, the Minister of the Environment said this: "[-] one of the first departments the office of the commissioner will be looking at is my department, the Department of the Environment. We welcome the opportunity of independent public review because we believe it will accelerate the integration of the two key objectives of sustainable development and their integration into the economy".
I hope that, during this review of the department's operations, the commissioner will have the opportunity to set the Minister of the Environment straight about this, because it would indeed not make much sense if the basic respecting the environment in Canada was not the first to include a definition of sustainable development.
The only possible explanation for this is the minister's inability to carry out her responsibilities properly. Several examples come to mind. The Irving Whale case is a well-known example, where the minister proved to be unable to deal properly with such a major issue and such a dramatic one, under the circumstances.
In that case, the office of the auditor general would obviously have much to do to meet the first objective of this bill.
The second thing that Bill C-83 does is provide for the appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. To this effect, the duties that the future commissioner to the environment and sustainable development is expected to perform are described in clauses 22 and 23.
The following information can be drawn from reading these sections. First, the commissioner in question will report directly to the auditor general, assist the auditor general in the performance of his duties with respect to the environment and sustainable develop-
ment. For instance, the commissioner will assess the effectiveness of action plans in meeting the objectives set out in departmental sustainable development strategies.
Second, the commissioner will follow up in the prescribed manner any petition received from a resident of Canada about an environmental matter in the context of this so-called sustainable development.
Third, the commissioner will make any examinations and inquiries that he deems necessary to monitor the extent to which each department has met the objectives set out in its own sustainable development strategy.
Finally, he will, on behalf of the auditor general, report annually to the House of Commons on the extent to which each department implemented its sustainable development plan and on anything in relation to the environment that he considers should be brought to the attention of the House.
I think it is important at this juncture to repeat to this House the comments made by Auditor General Denis Desautels when he appeared before the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee on October 3.
At that time he said the following-and I shall quote him extensively because I think that the Auditor General has put his finger right on the fundamental problem in this matter.
I shall be quoting from several pages of Mr. Desautels' testimony. He said: "When I last appeared before this Environment Committee, I also spoke of the expectations of the interested parties concerning what it was agreed at that time to call the `auditor general of the environment', as no name had been found at that time. The extent of those expectations continues to be of concern to me" he continued. "I feel that there might be a gap between what interested parties such as the environmentalist groups want the commissioner to do, or hope that he can do, and the reality of the mandate and the available funding. In the coming months, it will be important to take care to reduce that gap as much as possible. I would, however, like to speak briefly of three areas in which such a gap might exist".
"When I came to speak to this Environment Committee in March of 1994, I stressed the importance of the office's independence and objectivity, which have justified its credibility since its creation in 1878".
"I pointed out that the responsibility for issues such as policy examination and environmental conflict resolution ought not to be a mandate of my office, since this might quickly and seriously endanger the long-standing independence, objectivity and credibility of the Auditor General".-I think that we can agree with Mr. Desautels on that.
"It is generally accepted in Canada that legislative auditors do not comment on the justification of policies. They concentrate on the application of policies"-policies defined by others, including this House.
"I might also add that our contacts with other auditor generals throughout the world indicate that the majority of my counterparts elsewhere interpret their mandate in the same way. "The proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act contain no provision authorizing the office to comment on policy, and we will not do so".
I would like to intervene at this point. We see that the auditor general made it clear that he will not be involved in formulating policies but in enforcing policies formulated by others.
Mr. Desautels continued to discuss his role as ombudsman or what that role would be expected to be: "Similarly, neither the proposed amendments nor the current mandate of the office provide that the office should play the role of ombudsman. To play that role would be costly and might have an adverse effect on the credibility of the Auditor General's Office and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development".
He also talked about jurisdictions, saying: "Finally, the mandate of the Auditor General's Office, including the proposed duties of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, is limited to what falls within the purview of the federal government. Neither I nor the commissioner have or will have the authority to deal with matters that are a provincial or municipal responsibility. I think it is important to mention here that the mandate and duties of the office, including those of the commissioner"-and I underlined what Mr. Desautels said in my text- "cannot be a substitute for firm leadership by the government and consistent management and accountability on the part of the department. And this applies both to environmental and non-environmental programs and activities".
"It will be up to the department's senior management to carefully scrutinize programs, and to determine whether they achieve their objectives, whether they remain relevant, and also whether there are more efficient ways to achieve the same results. Such analysis is essential to sound program management and proper communication of audit information".
"A Guide to Green Government' published in June this year indicates that departments are to report annually on progress made on sustainable development in Part III of the Main Estimates. The guide also indicates that this regular progress report in the Main Estimates will require on-going monitoring and self-evaluation. As part of its responsibilities, senior departmental management, will have to monitor and evaluate its own progress. This is a fundamental managerial responsibility, both in the public and private sectors".
"The results of our work assessing programs indicate how hard it is for the government to implement good ways of measuring efficiency and to communicate practical information in this regard".
I think Mr. Desautels explains himself here and will indicate the thrust of his interpretation of this bill: "At a time of employee cuts and restructuring, I fear the challenge may not been taken up". The auditor general goes on to say: "In our experience, for departments to act positively, they must be given leadership, support and direction". "I think there may be some expectation that we will be the ones to establish reference points or criteria on which to measure the government's progress. We would become part of the day to day business of the government, and thus the traditional independence of the legislative auditor from operations would disappear. This could also be seen as a potential conflict of interest, because we would have to audit something we had developed".
This is the end of the auditor general's text. I have taken the liberty of reading much of it, because it is in fact the response of the auditor general to this bill, which establishes his guidelines and determines his responsibility. In his opinion, they do not seem to correspond to people's expectations, and the auditor general himself says in fact: "I fear the challenge may not be taken up".
In short, the auditor general is telling us he cannot meet Parliament's expectations on the monitoring of activities of the departments covered by this bill.
What in fact are these expectations the auditor general refers to? During debate at second reading, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment said the following, and I quote: "Beyond the significant powers of the office, the very existence of the office of a commissioner of environment and sustainable development sends a powerful signal not only within the government itself but beyond the government into the reaches of Canadian society. They now know there will be somebody there, a monitor, an ombudsman, who will devote his or her duties to the environment and sustainable development in making sure the government itself practices what it preaches".
The remarks by the parliamentary secretary are somewhat at odds with those of the auditor general. This is made even more worrisome by the fact that, in the same speech, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis goes on to say, "The key issue here is if this commissioner of environment and sustainable development will be truly independent and have the necessary powers, autonomy, independence to ensure that he or she is listened to and that the public feels that through this office it has a voice and a say".
The auditor general's own description clearly shows that his role depends essentially on the government's real leadership and not on his own qualifications.
But, as we heard, the auditor general did say that playing the role of ombudsman could have a negative impact on the credibility of the auditor general's office and of the sustainable environment commissioner. During the same debate, the hon. member for Davenport had this to say about Bill C-83: "This is not a minor step. It is a remarkable one. It inserts in the mandate of the auditor general the importance of monitoring sustainable development strategy and implementing the meaning, significance and the interpretation of sustainable development. That is no minor feat".
Yet, the auditor general himself went to the trouble of toning down this interpretation of the role that will be played by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The auditor general himself said that the proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act contained no provisions allowing the auditor general's office to comment on the validity of policies, and that they would not do so. That is what Mr. Desautels said.
I also want to point out that, in his September 18 speech, the member for Davenport said: "The role and the funding of the commissioner must be ensured so that they do not suffer in times of budget cuts. I am certain that this matter will be taken into account fully".
Let us hope that the reassuring words of the member for Davenport, who is surely full of good intentions, will be heard by the Treasury Board Secretariat, because the auditor general expressed concern in that regard, following his discussions with TBS. Mr. Desautels said: "I want to point out that, in spite of the additional resources made necessary by the amendments to the Auditor General Act, in 1997-98, the office will have reduced its budget by some $7 million per year". Again, there is a contradiction.
There is another provision in the bill which should be looked at, namely the requirements to be imposed for responding to petitions received by the auditor general about federal environmental matters in the context of sustainable development. Clause 22 of the bill states how these petitions will be dealt with. That clause reads as follows:
(1) Where the Auditor General receives a petition in writing from a resident of Canada about an environmental matter in the context of sustainable development that is the responsibility of a category I department, the Auditor General shall make a record of the petition and forward the petition within fifteen days after the day on which it is received to the appropriate Minister for the department.
(2) Within fifteen days after the day on which the Minister receives the petition from the Auditor General, the Minister shall send to the person who made the petition an
acknowledgment of receipt of the petition and shall send a copy of the acknowledgment to the Auditor General.
(3) The Minister shall consider the petition and send to the person who made it a reply that responds to it, and shall send a copy of the reply to the Auditor General, within
(a) one hundred and twenty days after the day on which the Minister receives the petition from the Auditor General; or
(b) any longer time, when the Minister personally, within those one hundred and twenty days, notifies the person who made the petition that it is not possible to reply within those one hundred and twenty days and sends a copy of that notification to the Auditor General.
(4) Where the petition is from more than one person, it is sufficient for the Minister to send the acknowledgment and reply, and the notification, if any, to one or more of the petitioners rather than to all of them.
I would have much more to say on petitions, Madam Speaker, but you are signalling that my time is up.
To sum up, I would like to say this. We will be voting against this bill for very specific reasons, in spite of the fact that we had originally requested that a position of commissioner to the environment be established.
The auditor general tells us that his basic problem is that he does not believe that he will be able to fulfil this mandate adequately. He also tells us that the government's leadership in this matter is more important that his. And so far, on every issue-whether it is the Irving Whale or the Berlin agreements on greenhouse effect-the Minister of the Environment has failed to show the leadership required to allow us to believe with any degree of certainly that the commissioner of the environment would have any real power.
Third and last, I note also the very clear picture that my colleague the hon. member for Laurentides has painted for us in her quite accurate analysis of clause 21.1, which does invade areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Auditor General ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Brampton-unemployment.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, the speakers on this bill from here on in will speak pursuant to Standing Order 43(2). In other words, they will be sharing their time.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I am truly delighted to rise to speak in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act. This act will create for Canada a commissioner for the environment and sustainable development.
I am particularly delighted in this case because this is a clear example of us fulfilling a commitment we made to Canadians in the red book, which was the basis of our election campaign. We said then that we would move Canada toward sustainable development. This bill is a very concrete step in that direction.
In the red book we recognized that there is no separation between a national environmental agenda and a national economic agenda. Since assuming office we have tried to implement that belief wherever possible. We have implemented it in our approach to planning and decision making within government. We have tried to integrate economic matters, social matters and environmental considerations. We understand that all these aspects of sustainable development can and must be co-ordinated to give Canadians what they want: a prosperous and healthy country in which we, our children, and our children's children can work to achieve our aspirations.
Environmental sustainable development must be an integral part of decision making in all federal departments. That means that decisions on new policies, programs, regulations, and laws as well as decisions on existing ones, must take that into account. It also includes decisions on how departments manage their buildings, facilities, and operations.
Strategies of sustainable development are a key part of Bill C-83. These strategies will take sustainable development from a concept to a real practice across all federal departments. Each minister will be required to table a sustainable development strategy for his or her department in this House within two years of the coming into force of this legislation.
By legal definition, sustainable development strategies must be results oriented. Each strategy will include the department's objectives and plans of action to obtain those objectives. Every minister will in fact become a sustainable development minister.
We all now realize that sustainable development is not the sole responsibility of the environment minister. It is the responsibility of all ministers and indeed of us all as Canadians. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, in an ideal world we would not need a Ministry of the Environment to monitor sustainable development in Canada because it should be the concern of all of us and of all ministries.
These departmental strategies will also assist the new environmental and sustainable development commissioner in monitoring and reporting on the government's performance. The stated objectives and action plans will serve as meaningful and measurable benchmarks against which to assess each department's performance in making the shift to sustainable development.
Departments are committed to developing their sustainable development strategies and establishing their goals and action plans in an open manner, working with all interested parties. This
will help to ensure that the departments establish meaningful and challenging targets.
In June the government released a guide to green government, which was endorsed by the Prime Minister and all ministers. The guide will assist federal departments and their stakeholders in the preparation of their sustainable development strategies.
Federal government departments differ in their mandates and in their abilities to influence Canada's sustainable development prospects. As a result, their strategies will differ, but clearly together they must present a coherent and consistent government approach to sustainable development.
Sustainable development is an evolving concept. Indeed, our understanding of sustainable development has evolved considerably in the past few years and it will continue to evolve as we grasp a further understanding of what it means as we move to operationalize it.
The guide I mentioned provides core concepts and principles underlying sustainable development as a starting point. The concepts and principles will likely continue to evolve over time and perhaps new concepts and principles will emerge.
Bill C-83 requires departments to update their sustainable development strategies and requires responsible ministers to table the updates in the House every three years. This allows the evolving nature of sustainable development and the lessons learned from operationalizing it to continually be incorporated into the strategies.
Another key aspect of Bill C-83 is the appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the office of the auditor general. The commissioner will assist the auditor general in performing general auditing duties. He or she will also report annually to the House on any matter concerning sustainable development that he or she considers merits the attention of the House. The commissioner will not only strengthen the work of the office of the auditor general on the environment and sustainable development, he or she will also enhance the federal government's accountability for its actions or its inaction on the environment and sustainable development.
We are the first major country to build sustainable development into our economy in this way. It is becoming increasingly clear that those economies that take environmental costs into account are in fact the most efficient of modern economies.
In conclusion, Bill C-83 establishes a framework for sustainability across all federal departments and enhances the government's accountability to the House for its progress on sustainable development. We are not afraid of being held accountable in this way because we are building a record of accomplishments, a record of which we are proud.
Bill C-83 will have far reaching implications within the government and within our society as a whole. It will move Canada forward along the path from talking about sustainability to acting sustainably. I look forward to the speedy passage of this important legislation.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-83.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development took on the task of examining the government's commitment to establish an environmental equivalent of the auditor general. This was in fact a key red book commitment. It is an idea that has been discussed and debated for many years. It is also an idea the government is making a reality in short order.
The committee heard from many stakeholders representing a wide range of interests and opinions. Their testimony provided important insights into what must be done for Canada to achieve sustainable development.
The committee in preparing its report and the government in proposing Bill C-83 have paid careful attention to the message of stakeholders. The committee submitted its report in May of last year and the government responded just over a year ago. Its response was aimed at integrating economic, environmental and social factors in federal planning and decision making across all departments, just what the stakeholders had asked for.
Key aspects of that response include the amendments to the Auditor General Act with which we are involved today. The amendments would provide openness, transparency and leadership by government on sustainable development and continued action to make sustainable development a real practice throughout the federal government. Bill C-83 is central to integrating the environmental and sustainable development in government planning decisions across all federal government departments.
Last year I had the pleasure of being part of the Special Joint Committee for the Review of Canada's Foreign Policy. For the first time as part of a review of foreign policy one of the areas we looked at was sustainable development and the environment. We can see more and more these days how much environmental issues are international matters.
The hon. member for Peace River is here today. He was also a part of that review. It was a very interesting process. I was pleased that for the first time as a committee we recognized in our report that the federal government should include as a major plank of its foreign policy the promotion of sustainable development around the world.
Why is it important for us to make environmental matters and sustainable development more of a priority in government? One reason is that we live in a world of limited measurable natural resources.
I asked a friend of mine, a professor of geography in Halifax, if we could measure the atmosphere, the amount of air around the world. He checked with a friend in a specialized area who was more knowledgeable on the particular topic and told me there were approximately five quadrillion tonnes of atmosphere around the world. That is about one one-millionth of the total mass of the earth. Twenty-one per cent of the atmosphere is oxygen.
It is measurable and finite which means that it is limited. There is not always lots more where that came from. We have to recognize therefore that if we can measure it and if we can limit it, we can also destroy it. We can damage it. That is a very important point to realize in thinking about the environment and the world we live in.
This is the only planet we know of that will sustain and support life. That is an important point too. If we damage this one we do not have another one to go to. It is unrealistic to think we can choose some other world or that we will have some way to transport billions of people to some other planet where we can survive if we damage this one.
There is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can exist, particularly human life. Is it possible for us as human beings to actually alter or change the conditions which sustain human life? It seems to me the answer to that question is yes. We now have solid evidence that we actually have changed the conditions. We are having an impact on the conditions.
This year 2,000 leading world experts on climate change came to the conclusion and agreed, after years of debating it and not being ready to agree, that human activity contributes to global warming. We are affecting climate change. We are moving in the narrow range within which we can actually sustain human life. We should be aware of that very important point.
The planet has a limited ability to support human life. Researchers at Cornell University in the U.S. determined in a study that the earth's biosphere could only produce enough renewable resources, food, fresh water and fish, to sustain about two billion people at European standards. That is not North American standards and we should know the difference. If members know much about how Europeans live, they will know they are less wasteful of resources. They tend to follow the three r s of reducing, reusing and recycling a little more than we do. They have done it for quite a while. They have a head start on the three r s that are so important for the environment. I hope we can follow their example and catch up quickly.
Not only in Europe but in North America we have to change our practices to try to follow the three r s of reducing our consumption; reusing our receptacles for pop, bottles of various kinds and other containers; and reducing the amount of packaging of products. Often we buy products with a lot more packaging than is required. I understand marketing problems but somehow marketers have to take into account environmental issues and find ways to market with less packaging.
The whole issue of sustainable development is a new issue in foreign policy and newer one in domestic policy. Today it must be a core issue in our domestic as well as foreign policy. Sustainable development is about integrating environmental, economic and social values into decision making. That is very important for our future. If we do not include all three in deciding what will be sustainable for us in the future, how we will live in a sustainable manner and how we will support social and other programs in a sustainable manner, we have big problems. We need to think about how much we value the environment, society and the people in it and the economy. We must consider all these points and not one at the exclusion of others.
When thinking of the environment we must think about how much are interests are endangered. If we realize that we live in a very narrow range of conditions that can support human life and that we can actually affect those conditions, change them and move them outside that range, we realize our interests are in danger.
One great problem for us is to determine how to move toward goals of greater employment that are so important and at the same time deal with tremendous challenges in the environment. That is a major challenge of the next 50 years but I hope we manage to deal with it sooner than that.
Should we increase our emphasis on sustainable development? Clearly the answer is yes. We have done it in foreign policy. We are now doing it by creating a role within the auditor general's office for a commissioner who will report directly to the auditor general and will file a report annually on how the government and all departments are doing in environmental matters. It is very important to keep the government's feet to the fire on environmental matters to make sure it lives up to its responsibilities to promote sustainable development in every aspect of its activities.
I was very pleased to speak on the bill and I urge all members to give it speedy passage.