Madam Speaker, I would like the member who just spoke to clarify two things.
The first has to do with accountability. As you know, Madam Speaker, from reading the bill the legislation calls for petitions from the general public, in other words those matters in which the public wants to hold the government accountable. Petitions from the general public that go to the new commissioner are simply handed over by the commissioner to the relevant government department for a response. That response is what holds the government accountable to the citizens of Canada; no investigation, no specific examination of the complaint, simply turning over the complaint to the department.
In other words, on a matter which happened recently a citizen was concerned about the PCBs on the Irving Whale . Instead of that matter going to court and the court telling the government it fell short on this issue, the department simply said it was no problem, the environmental impact assessment was sufficient and the Whale would be raised. The courts came back and said that those nice words were not good enough, that the PCBs were not a part of the environmental assessment study and until they were the Whale could not be raised.
Nice words of the department do not demonstrate accountability to the public. I would like the member to further clarify his statement in light of that comment.
The other statement has to do with the clout of the auditor general. The member indicates that he supports the legislation because the auditor general has clout. I think I quote him correctly.
In appearing before the committee, the auditor general acknowledged that the clout he has is embarrassment. The clout he has is by reporting. The public reads the report and the government is embarrassed. The government is embarrassed enough already on environmental issues. How is it that the clout an environmental commissioner would have would be any different from the embarrassment the government feels today?