Debates of Sept. 19th, 1995

Auditor General Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for his remarks and for his clarification. I accept that and it was not as personal as his colleague intended.

It is the job of the House, including the member opposite, to see that governments of the day carry through with their commitments. In this case I mentioned environmental policies put into effect by the government. We are debating a promise the government made before it was elected, which it is putting into place. Here is an example of something being done.

When the commissioner starts to report and the member opposite receives this new information about what is happening in government I hope he will use it as a stick to see to it the government of the day, ours or any other, makes the government as green as possible.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act to establish an office for monitoring and auditing government departmental work involving sustainable development.

I am pleased to speak to the bill because it addressed a subject very important to me. In the previous Parliament I had a private member's motion that called for the government to establish an environmental auditor general. It had a lot of support from all political parties of the time, environmental organizations and ordinary Canadians. I also sat on the environment committee last year when it studied and reported on the idea of establishing such an office.

That report, issued in May 1994, looked at the need for environmental auditing and concluded Canada needed not just an auditor but a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

The committee stated in its report: "Virtually all witnesses saw the area of independent policy review as being the biggest gap that currently exists in the framework by which the government is to be held accountable for its sustainability efforts".

Most of the witnesses said more than an auditing function was needed. François Bregha, president of Resource Futures International, said a policy evaluation role was necessary because we do

not have the criteria right now to measure our progress toward sustainable development.

Bill Andrews, executive director of the West Coast Environmental Law Association, agreed: "What is missing is an independent policy analysis role so that if there are major gaps in policy decisions there is some way of knowing they will come to public attention".

The committee also recommended that the office of commissioner be established by new and separate legislation, not just with an amendment to the Auditor General Act.

Paul Muldoon, former member of the task force on the Ontario bill of rights, stated separate legislation is necessary because the roles, functions, mandates, scope and powers must be crystal clear in the minds of the public, in the minds of government and in the minds of other affected constituencies.

Sadly, as with so much the government does, its actions in response to the good words of the committee and to the witnesses who appeared before it fall short of what is needed. Bill C-83, as we will see in our study of the legislation, has little to do with sustainable development and is not what is desperately needed in Canada today.

When second reading concludes the legislation will return for clause by clause study to the same standing committee on the environment which drafted the original report. I hope the other members of the committee will challenge Bill C-83 aggressively and defend the interests of the report they wrote. The committee cannot overlook the fact that the Minister of the Environment in drafting Bill C-83 has ignored 11 out of 17 recommendations contained in that committee's extensive report.

At the same time it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that witness after witness told the committee environmental auditing would not be proactive enough.

Art Hanson, president and chief executive officer of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said the audit of how well existing policies are implemented does little to inform the need for new policies.

Kenny Blacksmith, deputy grand chief, Grand Council of the Cree, agreed: "It would be preferable to have no commissioner than to have a commissioner whose terms of reference are so restrictive that she or he cannot influence the substance of policy, implementation and content and interpretation of laws on environmental issues".

I quoted yesterday in the House Helen Hughes, New Zealand's commissioner for the environment, who said she would find it very difficult to operate without being able to look at government policy.

As these witnesses confirmed, what is needed is an independent commissioner who can take a forward looking approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the federal government's policies, laws, regulations and programs in moving Canada toward sustainability. Instead of independent policy analysis what we have in Bill C-83 is an auditing function of how well existing policies are being implemented and whether government departments are meeting the objectives of their own sustainable development plans.

For all intents and purposes and with all sincerity this is a role that should be carried out by the departments and the auditor general today. There is nothing new in Bill C-83 that could not be done without it.

Truly effective environmental auditing is something different. Truly effective environmental auditing would look at the policies and objectives which govern the departments and their programs and tell us if those policies and objectives are adequate or desirable.

The function proposed by the minister for this new office through Bill C-83 is a reflective model. It asks the office holder to look at the past and tell us what we have done wrong. The function proposed by my previous work and the function supported by Canadians and the committee as most needed is a proactive one, one that looks at the future and guides us through policy and program design to that future, a future in which Canadians through their efforts and activities can live a sustainable life and ensure our activities on the earth are sustainable.

It is most important that this generation leave the earth a better place for the next generation. This means we have to change many of the ways we are currently doing things. Obviously we can learn from looking at the past and therefore an audit function in and of itself about to be performed by the auditor general's office, if the legislation passes, is important. I am not saying we should scrap the legislation and go back to the status quo, which is obviously even more inadequate. What I am saying is that simply knowing we have done something wrong is not good enough.

More than anything else it is important Canada have a vehicle to help promote sustainability in all that we do. This means knowing how something can be done right and then steering the mechanics of government in that direction. We do not get where we are going simply by looking at where we have been and acknowledging the mistakes we have made along the way. We need a map in hand and the foresight to design our travel route to achieve our stated and understood goals.

Bill C-83 will not help in moving Canada's environmental and sustainability goals forward. It will not give us the tools we need to

evaluate our policies until whatever damage those policies will cause have already been done.

There is a big job in this field to be done. When the environment committee concluded its review of this matter it said the new commissioner's office should have many functions. I will outline a couple of those functions as set out by the environment committee's report.

The commissioner should evaluate all federal policies, laws, regulations, programs and guidelines to determine those which encourage and those which impede Canada's progress toward sustainable development and to make recommendations accordingly.

The commissioner should examine all federal policies, laws, regulations, programs and guidelines to determine the extent to which they comply with Canada's international commitments, including protocols, treaties and conventions in the area of sustainable development. We know how important this function is in relation to the latest round of agreements Canada has signed, particularly those reached in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; agenda 21 comes to mind immediately and Canada's commitments to the international community.

In this regard Bill Andrews, whom I quoted earlier, told the committee: "We have a glaring lack of systematic assessment of the extent to which we are meeting our international commitments".

The committee also recommended the commissioner be given additional tasks to encourage consultation and co-operation between federal and provincial levels of government with respect to sustainable development, to liaise with government, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to monitor and report on the evolution of sustainable development concepts, practices and technologies. The committee further recommended to advocate to Canadians the necessity for sustainable development in all of our actions.

These were among the many functions recommended by the environment committee one year ago, recommendations worth defending by every member of the environment committee who debated these issues before the report was written.

In response Bill C-83 guts that report and instead sets out the following function. Section 23(1) of Bill C-83:

The commissioner shall make any examinations and inquiries that the commissioner considers necessary in order to monitor (a) the extent to which category I departments have met the objectives, and implemented the plans set out in their sustainable development strategies.

What a difference in approach. The committee which studied this field extensively says many important functions are necessary for this office to operate successfully. The Minister of the Environment responds by saying in Bill C-83 it is just enough to monitor how well the departmental staff has succeeded in meeting the targets it has set, targets that have been designed with this in mind.

These sustainable development strategies do not have to be written for another two years. The legislation exempts departmental staff from rewriting them for another three years, if it wishes. Under the terms of Bill C-83 the new auditor will not even have plans to monitor for the first two years of his term of office. None of the matters before government, as I mentioned earlier as set out by the committee, can be looked at during that period of time.

All the plans the departments write during those two years will be recently written plans. This whole thing strikes me as being a bit ridiculous.

Another provision of the legislation requires our attention as well. We should all object in principle to the provision that directs government departments to respond to public petitions on matters of environmental concern. As it stands, if Bill C-83 passes unamended, any public petition to investigate a complaint received by the auditor general's office must be passed on to the relevant government department for review, report and response within four months. This means that any department that wants to justify its actions rather than evaluate them is given carte blanche to do so.

What is needed is an ombudsperson function where members of the public can petition the commissioner to conduct special investigations if they think that environmental policies or laws are being ignored or violated. The minister called for this in the original terms of reference given to the committee. Writing polite responses to serious environmental concerns is simply not good enough.

A further provision in the bill allows the minister to tell a petitioner that it is not possible to reply within four months. My question to all on the government side, and particularly those who have served on the committee, is what happens then. How long can departments take to respond to petitions?

What moves me to speak at length about this is the recent court case involving the government's decision to raise the Irving Whale off the coast of Prince Edward Island when the environmental impact assessment had not considered the PCBs which were in the heating system of the barge.

The court upheld the citizens' petition and threw out the government's nice words defending itself. If Canadians and myself as concerned environmentalists want real teeth in our environmental legislation, there must be real independence and enforcement in

the monitoring and investigating office charged with protecting all of our long term interests. Bill C-83 provides none of that.

At the same time there is plenty of other evidence, including the collapse of the east coast fishery, to show that we need a truly independent environmental auditor. By not recommending this independent ombudsperson function for the commissioner, the environment committee's report did not go far enough. This missing investigative role is an important aspect of the issue before us today as we review Bill C-83 and before the committee studies the issue for a second time.

In conclusion, in support of my argument that Bill C-83 is inadequate and different legislation must be written to take its place, let me, as I did yesterday in comments and questions, quote briefly from the chair of the environment committee, the hon. member for Davenport who has contributed a great deal to the debate already. I quote from the foreword to the committee's report, written by the chairperson a year ago:

In the 1993 election campaign, all major political parties committed themselves, once again, to the concept of sustainable development. In particular, the current government made several specific promises designed to further the implementation of environmentally sustainable policies.

As a result of its deliberations, the committee has concluded that the most appropriate way to implement the government's proposed functions is through the creation of a commissioner of sustainable development in conjunction with an expanded role for the office of the auditor general.

The committee believes the creation of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is a priority, one which appropriately answers the requests of the government and which will provide the necessary momentum for the shift toward sustainability.

Obviously the member for Davenport thinks as I do, that Canada needs to begin the shift toward sustainability at the first available opportunity, not two years down the road from now as Bill C-83 implies.

The member for Davenport, the chairperson of the committee, acknowledged that his party campaigned on such a platform. He clearly states that at the very least to fulfil those campaign promises, a new office with new functions is required.

If Bill C-83 passes it is clear to me and to Canadians watching that yet another Liberal promise to the people of Canada on the environment has been broken. More important, the needs of the planet and its ability to sustain life have once again been ignored by the government.

At this time when the environment department's budget is being cut by 30 per cent to 40 per cent and the government's commitment to the environment seems to be lapsing, a commissioner working for the auditor general is not necessarily what is needed. This response to Canada's long term sustainability needs does not go far enough.

Yesterday, as I listened to many of the speeches that were made relating to this issue, I questioned certain members of government on this issue. It totally amazed me that as Liberal members of the environment committee stood to speak to this issue not a single one defended the report. Not a single member of the environment committee that met last year on this issue, who worked so hard and listened to so many witnesses testify about the need for an independent proactive commissioner of the environment and who signed that report indicating their support for that position, defended the report in the House.

The environment committee has just finished a major report reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Thousands of hours have been committed by members of the environment committee. They produced a report of which I think most members of the House would be most supportive. The recommendations of the committee have been well received in the environmental community across Canada.

I am most concerned these members who will not defend their own report on an environmental auditor will now not defend this important report on CEPA when the government responds to it in five or six weeks. I would hope the members who worked so hard on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act review are prepared to defend the interests of the committee, the witnesses who appeared before the committee and the recommendations contained in that committee report when the government responds.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time today to speak on this important issue. I look forward to the work the committee now has to review the clause by clause study of Bill C-83.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker talked about the need for independence and authority on the part of an environmental commissioner. I agree.

In follow-up to the comments made by the previous speaker on the Liberal side, trying to twist and make light of the integrity of the auditor general, I find it very curious that he defends the integrity of the auditor general at a time when his party ignores most of what the auditor general recommends.

To put into perspective what I was talking about with regard to watchdogs being lapdogs I would point his attention away from the auditor general and toward the ethics counsellor. It is absolutely useless to appoint someone who is either going to do whatever the government tells him or her or who is going to make recommendations only to have them ignored.

The last speaker has clarified the issue. If we are going to have some kind of commissioner or special watchdog-if we can use

that word-it has to be someone who has both the independence of this body and the authority to see these actions are carried out.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member was not actually posing a question to me but responding to a matter that occurred earlier this day in the House. I want to comment briefly also on the auditor general who appeared before the environment committee as a witness during our deliberations on this important matter.

It is worth stressing, as the member for Davenport did yesterday, that even the auditor general indicated to the committee that it was beyond the scope of his office to do some of the things the government is now asking his office to do. The auditor general's office is one that functions as an auditor of government programs. The audit can only occur on matters that have already been set out as objectives of the government. If the government's objectives are wrong, the auditor general is not in any position to comment on that. Obviously those rules would apply to any desk or any worker within that office including the new commissioner of the environment.

It is quite possible that the auditor general's response to Bill C-83 will be that he is willing to take on the task before him, but we must bear in mind that some of the mandate which he has been given goes beyond the realm of what his office is capable of doing.

It is important to recognize in reviewing Bill C-83 that the auditor general performs a valuable function, but to ensure sustainability we need to go beyond the office of the auditor general. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year supported the view that we need something over and above the role which an auditor general can perform. I am surprised that members of the environment committee have not defended their own report.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-83. It has been over a year since the House of Commons 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 a key commitment of the Liberal red book in the 1993 election campaign and it is a commitment to Canadians. It is an idea which has been discussed and debated for many years and a request of the public.

One message which came through loud and clear from the stakeholders was the message that there is a real need in Canada for leadership in making the shift to sustainable development. For more than a decade we have been exploring the concept, examining the implications and considering the measures it requires. Now is the time to move words into action. That will take bold and decisive leadership. That is the leadership which we are seeing in Bill C-83.

Another message was that, above all, the leadership must come from the federal government. This is the largest business in Canada and what it does has an immense influence throughout our society. That is true not only of federal policies, programs and regulations affecting various sectors, but also of the way in which the Government of Canada operates. The federal government must be held publicly accountable for its progress in making the shift to sustainable development and to sustainable policies. These are not only sustainable policies which are fiscally responsible and economically responsible, but, specifically, environmentally responsible.

At the same time the government must look back and assess whether existing initiatives create barriers to the achievement of sustainable development. The government must consider how to achieve existing policy goals in a way that promotes sustainable development. We must build the cost of the environment into the cost of doing business in Canada today.

I know that in preparing its report the committee paid careful attention to the stakeholders' messages. The office of the auditor general has much clout and that is why in preparing these amendments the bill has put into the Auditor General Act. We are creating a commissioner who is part of and the responsibility of the auditor general's department. It is independent from government. The reason is because the auditor general's department has high respect among the public of Canada. It has solid expertise which can be put to use at once. It has the framework and the structure in place that may be held responsible to the public. For all of these reasons it can greatly enhance the auditing of the government's environmental performance.

In addition, by giving this department specific environmental responsibilities we can ensure that the issues of the environment and issues of sustainable development will be integrated solidly and directly into economic considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable development is all about. The office of the commissioner will provide leadership. It will put Canada in the forefront in making the shift to sustainable development.

First, the amendments create a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This official will report directly to and work closely with the Auditor General of Canada on matters relating to the environment and sustainable development.

One priority is for the work to carry on. No matter what happens to the position of auditor general there would be continuity. The position of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would be ensured. By doing this we are guaranteeing

that it becomes a post created for a commissioner who will serve the sustainability of the environment for Canada.

There are other amendments in the bill which do provide for more leadership in making the shift to this sustainable development policy. They require that federal government departments, that is every department of the Government of Canada, prepare and table results oriented sustainable development strategies within two years. That is, they must set goals and spell out the action by which they will achieve those goals.

These strategies will promote the shift to sustainable development policy at the program level and also in other ways the departments operate their buildings and facilities. This is a means of control, a watchdog, over all departments in the Government of Canada.

The departmental strategies will be developed in an open, transparent manner with the involvement of external stakeholders such as the national round table on environment and economy. We will involve the environmentalists, the public sector, the private sector and all citizens of the country so that they have an opportunity to be heard to express their views on what the country should be doing to maintain a sustainable environment, sustainable economic development.

They will also establish benchmarks against which to measure the government's performance. These will enable the commissioner and the auditor general to do their job effectively and independently.

What is more, every three years each department must update its sustainable development strategy and the minister responsible must table this update in the Parliament of Canada. This makes sure that the strategies are continually updated, continually responsible to new technologies and new developments which occur throughout the country.

Public accountability has come up this morning. The amendments provide for enhanced public accountability by the government in making the shift to sustainable development. The commissioner must submit a yearly report to this House on matters relating to the environmental aspects of sustainable development whatever the commissioner considers appropriate. By that amendment I believe he has the freedom to look at any issues in any department of this government and to make assessments to report on those if he deems it appropriate in his opinion.

The report will focus on the environmental performance of all federal departments. In other words, the extent to which the department has implemented its plan of action it will be held accountable and the extent to which the department has achieved its sustainable development objectives it will be held accountable.

Further, the report will present the number, the subject and the status of petitions received by ministers on environmental matters. Let me refer to the bill. In this context the public has the opportunity to present a petition; that is any citizen of this country might present a petition, if he takes the time to get citizens' signatures.

The petition would be received by the commissioner. It would be forwarded to the minister responsible for that specific department. The recipient minister would then be required to acknowledge in the House receipt of that petition within 15 days and to respond to the petition within four months. The four-month period might be extended by the minister if the petitioner and the auditor general were notified that it would be impossible to respond within the four months.

This puts the petition on a time line. It holds the commissioner, the minister and the department responsible to the citizen who has presented the petition. That is accountability on behalf of the government in the introduction of Bill C-83.

The task of appointing the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development will be the responsibility of the auditor general. This arrangement will give the commissioner the needed and utmost independence from the Government of Canada. This again gives him credibility and accountability to carry out his duties responsibly.

The third message of stakeholders was the need to assess new and existing government initiatives for their consistency with sustainable development. The government has already acted in this area. Keeping track of its performance will be the responsibility of the auditor general and the commissioner.

Last November the task force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound environmental practices submitted its report. It contained recommendations to the ministers of finance and environment. These advised on how to review existing policies, to check whether they contained barriers to the promotion of sustainable development. This reviews some of our policies and legislation that might be outdated, that might be antiquated and will inhibit or maybe even prohibit the advancement of sustainable development in a sustainable economy. They also advised on how to prevent the unnecessary creation of barriers in the future.

As promised in the budget, the ministers will respond to the task force within the coming months. Once again this holds the government accountable to sustainable fiscal policy, to sustainable economy and to sustainable environment for the people of Canada.

As I mentioned, in preparing their sustainable development strategies, federal departments must act in an open, honest accountable way. They must involve the citizens of Canada and the stakeholders, the environmentalists.

In their part III estimates which will come out annually departments will again be required to report their progress toward sustainable development. They must provide information on the number, the type and the status of environmental assessments which they are conducting.

There are additional actions that will integrate the environment into decision making. The third component of the government response is a commitment to additional steps we will take to integrate the environment into all decision making in all departments of the government.

I spoke of the task force to identify barriers and disincentives to sound environmental practices. The government followed up on its short term recommendations in the last budget. We are in the process of preparing a formal response to the task force report, including its longer term recommendations. The response will set out how the government plans to move forward on implementing economic instruments and on identifying barriers and disincentives to these practices in the existing government policies. The commissioner will play a very important role in holding this government and all future governments publicly accountable with ongoing efforts in this area.

These measures along with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will do much to integrate environmental considerations, environmental evaluations into virtually every federal government decision.

So many things are happening in Atlantic Canada in development, whether they are large pulp mills, lumbering industries, the transport of chemicals and products, that are detrimental to our environment should there be difficulties and accidents. We talked about the Irving Whale this morning.

The legislation will be a tremendous asset. Citizens will have the opportunity to bring a petition forward to a commissioner, to a minister of the department to assess, to evaluate, to judge objectively what is economically feasible, what is environmentally sustainable and what will serve the country for the long haul.

The government has taken a strong stand in Parliament on no quick fix solutions, a strong stand that we will be part of long term sustainability. This is part of our policy and philosophy. In each and everything we do, we will build for the next generation.

The Brundtland report "In Our Common Future" uses technical terms describing what is meant by sustainability. I studied that in doing some university work at the masters level. The kind of responsibility we have to a global society today is to act in a responsible way particularly here as legislators over and above the citizen's responsibility.

We are caretakers of this environment, of this earth only for a short time. We have a grave responsibility during that period to act responsibly. We should take only from the environment and the economy what we need to meet our needs today so that we do not build our economy on greed but on need. In that way we leave something for those in the next generation so that they too might take a living from the environment, from all the wonderful great natural resources we have been so fortunate to have had bestowed on this great Canada.

In conclusion, the amendments to this auditor general act are part of the broader effort I have just described. They are a fundamental and crucial part of what the philosophy of the Government of Canada is today. It will radically change the way in which the federal government does its business, in which the federal departments do their business.

This will be a major step forward, making sustainable development a reality to this country. It will be a major step forward in the eyes of the world. Canada will be viewed as a progressive nation that is caring, looking to the economy and to the environment and that one must be integrated into the other.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of the bill now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the Auditor General Act provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who will report to the auditor general and provide him with an overview of all federal government activities and operations related to the environment and to sustainable development.

Bill C-83 also requires all federal government departments to develop sustainable development strategies to be laid before the House of Commons.

The bill has particular relevance in light of a report that was released this past week by the World Bank regarding the wealth of nations. By this report, Canada is the second richest country in the world. This is not what we are used to hearing about our economy. We are used to being ranked well down in the teens by the old way

of looking at the wealth of a nation based on income, investment, and those things that can be measured in dollars moving about in the economy.

The ranking that was done by the World Bank last week was formulated using a system of measurement that derives wealth from the value of a country's natural resources as one of the components. Based on this measure, the majority of Canada's wealth lies in its natural resources. Therefore, our capacity to develop a healthy economy not only for our future but for future generations lies in how we use those resources. It lies in using those resources in a sustainable way.

The system used by the World Bank in this new methodology challenges conventional thinking by looking beyond the normal measures of wealth that have been used until now. It starts moving the assessment of the worth of nations to a process and a standard based on sustainability in the long term.

That is why the measures we take to husband our natural resources, to use them in a way that ensures that future generations also have resources on which to build their prosperity, are not only matters of economic well-being. They are matters of survival. Perhaps that gives this bill new relevance. We can begin to see it not only in the context of how much we have in land and the quality of that land, what we have in forests, what we have in subsoil resources and the quality of our water, but we can begin to see it in the context of the whole quality of life.

We had one horrendous reminder this year that if we do not husband those resources, if we do not regard those gifts the world has to give as something that has to sustain our country and the world for future generations, then we face tragedy. We have had the virtual elimination of the cod stock, which has been a source of income and an important part of our country and other countries around the world for generations. That source has now been virtually lost. We would be only guessing if we tried to estimate whether that resource will ever be restored.

The World Bank is starting to recognize that the wealth of nations has to be looked at in a different way, that the value of the resources we have and how we use them is an important component of our present and future prosperity and that depleting those resources in fact depletes our wealth.

I would like to give another example to make the point quite concretely about what was wrong with the old system and how we have to start changing how we look at things.

Under the old system the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a tremendous benefit to the economy. It put up our GDP quite significantly because it generated millions of dollars in lawyers' fees and millions of dollars in clean-up costs. It was good for the economy under the old system. I do not think any one of us wants to stand in the House to say that the spilling of oil into our oceans is a positive benefit for our country.

Let me now turn to this particular bill and how it is consistent with this concept of sustainable development. It requires government to look at every policy, program, spending decision, activity and operation of government to determine its impact on the environment. It requires every minister to look at every aspect of that minister's department and table a strategy to ensure that the operations, programs, and policies of the department are consistent with sustaining the environment of the world in which we depend not only for economic prosperity but for our very survival.

It requires the government to establish an environmental commissioner who will oversee the environmental impact and the impact on sustainable development not only of new policies, new legislation and new programs, but of all existing policies, legislation and programs.

The legislation sets up a new public accountability for the government. One thing that has been learned by the nations of the world over the years is that it is public oversight of our responsibility that determines how responsibly we act. One of the key messages coming out of the earth summit in Rio a couple of years ago was that transparency, public oversight, and accountability of governments is vital to achieving the plan of action that all nations agreed to at that very important world conference.

The World Bank report made it clear that Canada, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, based largely on its tremendously wonderful supply of natural resources, also has the most to lose if it does not act in a sustainable way. If we do not set up a society in which government, in our partnership with the private sector, informs and motivates individual Canadians to do their part as well to sustain the environment, then all of us lose. The country will lose. To the extent that any country in the world fails to exercise its responsibilities for sustainable development, the world itself and future generations lose.

Before closing this morning, I must say that I have a little trouble understanding the Bloc's position on this bill. Personally, I remember very clearly the time when the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois was minister of the Environment in this House and a member of the government. I remember very clearly his commitment to the environment and his belief in the government's responsibility to take action in order to protect the environment.

I also remember that the Bloc tabled in this House a minority report proposing exactly what is being proposed in this bill, namely that the government create the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development as part of the Office of the Auditor General, instead of creating a new, separate office.

I find it difficult to understand today why the Bloc is opposing legislation which does exactly what it has proposed to the House of Commons and to the government.

I see this as a step back from their previous position and that of their leader, who is now Leader of the Official Opposition, as regards environmental protection, sustainable development and the government's responsibility to show leadership in these areas.

Canada has a right to be proud of the leadership role it has played globally on many of these important environmental issues, particularly in the area of global climate change.

It is easy to think of this as an administrative bill that relates to the Government of Canada and to how it conducts its business and to how ministries are administered on a day to day basis. I believe its impact is far greater than that. It demonstrates leadership on the part of government, just as Canada has traditionally played a leadership role in these very important issues for some time now. It demonstrates the kind of leadership that was there when the previous Parliament implemented the program of greening the Hill, believing that we as the Parliament of Canada first and foremost had to demonstrate we were taking our responsibilities both personally and seriously.

However, the bill does more than that. It addresses some of the key issues facing the world today. Those issues were again very much front and centre at the United Nations conference held in Beijing, which ended just last week. The concerns of women in developing countries about things we take for granted, like basic health needs, basic protection and a safe environment for them and their children, were very much at the forefront of the agenda.

We still face the situation where 14 million children around the globe die every year of diarrhoea. That is 40,000 children a day simply for lack of access to clean water. That is the importance of measures we take as a nation and measures we take as an important actor in the global community to ensure that preserving the wealth of this world, which we hold in trust for the next generation, is a priority for us as a Parliament, for us as individual parliamentarians and for our government.

Mr. Speaker, it is therefore a privilege to witness this bill being tabled in this House and to have the opportunity to support it.

I urge all members of the House to support the legislation, to let us get on with the important work of making sure that everything the government does is consistent with the preservation of the environment as part of our global responsibility.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. colleague from Ottawa West, who just spoke on Bill C-83, did not have all the facts, when she was wondering what the position of the official opposition, that is to say the Bloc Quebecois, was regarding the establishment of a position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I would like to remind her that, yesterday, around 1:50 p.m., I rose in the House of Commons to say, and I will quote this slowly to make sure she hears me very clearly: "The official opposition does not intend, at least for the time being, to challenge the mandate that the minister wants to give to the commissioner of the environment. However, we deplore the fact that, ultimately, the commissioner will merely have the power to make suggestions".

If she had listened to me as carefully as I listened to her a moment ago, she would have found out that the Bloc Quebecois does not intend to oppose the establishment of a position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. On the contrary, we want the commissioner to have power to do more than just make recommendations like the auditor general at present.

After the Christmas holidays, the auditor general will once again present his annual report. We, the official opposition, will have a field day as the terrible things this government has done are revealed to Canadian taxpayers. There will be much talk about it the first week, hardly any the second week and, by the third week, it will be all but forgotten.

My hon. colleague from Ottawa West mentioned future generations. I would like to remind her that, as we speak, between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, we have a barge that has been sitting in the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for over 25 years, as of last week. This barge contains bunker C oil and, as we learned at the end of June, large amounts of fuel contaminated with PCBs. In 1970, and for the next 14 years until 1984, the Liberals were in power in Ottawa. Within three weeks, your government will be celebrating its second year in office. Yet nothing has been done.

Your government is all talk and no action. It is all fine and well to talk about future generations and say that every Canadian is a billionaire. Those are fine words, but idle talk nonetheless. If my

colleague wants to get richer, I suggest that she buy shares from Quebecers or Canadians who may be prepared to sell their shares to her for a very reasonable price.

To conclude, I wish my colleague from Ottawa West would urge the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has not only the power to make recommendations but also effective power to force the government and its departments to respect the environment and sustainable development, favourite topics of certain government members these days.

I remember the St. Lawrence action plan, phase 1, phase 2, designed to depollute the river. Just last week, there was a report where they were catching fish to analyze their flesh. It is worse. Really.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My colleague should be given an opportunity to respond and there is very little time left to do so. The hon. member has embarked on a windy discourse that will leave no time to my hon. colleague to respond to his tale of woes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair always gives the hon. member who asks a question and the hon. member answering it equal time.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is a tactic of the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis to try to distract the opposition. These days, it seems as though the government wants to gag the official opposition. It is afraid to hear what our fellow citizens are telling us in our ridings.

I was talking about the St. Lawrence action plan to clean the St. Lawrence River. Listen to this: out of a budget of $19.2 million, this government took $6 million to commission studies on the cleaning up of the river. However, these studies were conducted in Miramichi, New Brunswick, several thousand kilometres from the St. Lawrence River. Where is the logic in that decision?

I would like to hear the member for Ottawa West tell us about the effect that this will have, other than to suggest the appointment of a commissioner of the environment.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to remind the member opposite that, when the Bloc leader was Minister of the Environment, it was his responsibility to take action regarding the Irving Whale , but he did not do anything.

Personally, I asked specific questions in this House, but the government at the time, with the Bloc leader as its environment minister, did not do anything about the Irving Whale . The current environment minister was the first to have the courage to make decisions regarding the Irving Whale and take action to have it refloated.

We know, and so does the hon. member, that the operation must be conducted with great caution because it involves risks and danger.

I also have an answer regarding the auditor general's responsibilities. It may be that the Bloc would like a government structure whereby the only way to make things move would be for people to rely on the courts to enforce actions. We prefer a system where the departments, which are accountable to this House, to the Prime Minister and to the people of Canada, have a duty to do what they can and what they should to ensure that their initiatives comply with the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection.

If the Bloc thinks that the commissioner of the environment will have no power, then it does not believe in the power of the public. The commissioner will be required to inform this House and the public, and he will be accountable to members of Parliament, to the government, to the departments and to the ministers. This is the strength of a democracy that works.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to talk about Bill C-83. This is a very important bill. I want to talk about this on behalf of my constituents in Vancouver South. To them this is a very important issue.

The environment is an issue which I have learned a lot about recently. I have probably learned more about the environment from my children. I have three young children who have made my wife and I learn more about the environment than we knew before. It is very important because our young people often lead in a lot of ways and we do not pay the attention we should to them. We can learn from our younger generations, as I have learned more about the environment.

I was interested to talk about the environment because as we have learned in history economic prosperity is closely linked to our respect for the environment. There are lots of examples in history of how when civilizations do not respect the environment they can destroy themselves. There are many examples in history of how societies deforest areas around them and sometimes continue to do that because of their need for fuel only to be left with erosion and then have problems in agriculture and in growing their food. Lo and behold they have taken a resource that was valuable to their society and destroyed it.

The legislation is in the red book. The Liberal government said the national environmental and economic agendas can no longer be separated, which means our future economic prosperity is very important. We want to preserve that economic prosperity. We want to grow and respect the environment.

That is why this is very important from the point of view that government action will be determined by a commissioner and the environmental factor will be considered when government decisions are being made. Bill C-83 demonstrates to Canadians the Liberal government is serious about the environment and sustainable development.

We often use the term sustainable development. It is a term used very wisely and widely. We should define sustainable development. For members in the House and for those watching, to me sustainable development is that our actions do not take away from future generations their standard of living or their quality of life. We in this generation must ensure our actions do not take away from future generations.

In a lot of ways we have already failed in that. We have taken away from future generations that which we have had. For example, we often hear the warning that children should not play outside during certain hours because of depletion of the ozone layer and the effect this can have on our children. I can remember as a child there was no such warning. We did not have to heed these warnings but our children do. We have already taken away from future generations in that by having a higher standard of living now future generations will be deprived of things like being able to play outside during the day at any time.

We have a long way to go but this is a start and sustainable development is all about ensuring we are not taking anything away from generations to come and we want to give them more. We want to make sure future generations have more than what we have today. I hope we can have that philosophy of giving them more. We are only the trustees of the resources we have to pass on to our children at the minimum in the same condition and hopefully in a better condition than how we received them.

I had an interesting experience when someone who often lectured about the environment put a time line on the board, a long line from the start of plant and animal life and stretched on to the time of mankind on earth. On this huge line there was a very tiny spot during which mankind has been on the.

Other animals have lived as long as 400 million years, but mankind between 1 million and 3 million years. If we collectively destroy our environment and destroy future generations, in respect of that time line we will barely be a footnote in the history of animal life on earth. That really opened my eyes to say we have been on the earth for such a short time and we have done so much damage already and we have lots of work to make sure we continue on that time line for a long time to come. We can only do it if we respect our environment.

Bill C-83 ensures federal government policies and operations are closely looked at in terms of the environment, as well as what effects it has on the economy. Canadians look to the federal government for leadership on sustainable development. By getting its house in order, by showing leadership the federal government can promote the shift to sustainable development throughout Canadian society. This is what Bill C-83 is all about.

The government's response to the committee's report focused on integrating the environment into federal decision making. The government has already followed up with a number of initiatives. To name a few, proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, actions to green government operations, the task force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound environmental practices and the initial follow up to the task force in the last federal budget.

Bill C-83 explicitly incorporates the environment and sustainable development in the Auditor General Act. This is very important because we do not want a commissioner without clout. We want a commissioner with clout and that is why I commend the Minister of the Environment who has brought this in under the Auditor General Act. It will give the auditor general the clear legal mandate to include environmental effects alongside the conventional considerations of the economy, effectiveness and efficiency among the considerations he uses to determine the observations he will bring to the attention of the House of Commons.

As I said earlier, Bill C-83 will also provide federal government leadership in making the shift to sustainable development. The amendments will proactively promote sustainable development across all federal departments by requiring ministers to table in the House sustainable development strategies that include their departments' objectives and plans of action to further sustainable development. Departments will be required to update these strategies every three years and ministers to table the updates in the House.

Bill C-83 will also authorize the auditor general to forward petitions from the public on environmental matters to the responsible ministers. The ministers will be required to respond within a specified time frame.

These amendments are significant in and of themselves. However the bill goes much further. Bill C-83 also creates a truly independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The commissioner will be within the office of the auditor general. He or she will be appointed by the auditor general and will report directly to him as his right hand person in all his environmental and sustainable development related duties.

The committee had recommended a stand alone commissioner. However, the commissioner can operate effectively and efficiently in the office of the auditor general because the office of the auditor general is well respected. It has clout and it has solid existing expertise which can start implementing the amendments right away.

Moreover, it means environmental and sustainable development issues will be integrated with the economic considerations in that office just as they should be in a sustainable development world.

The commissioner will also assist the auditor general in addressing the environmental and sustainable development aspects of his general auditing work. The commissioner will monitor and report annually to the House on the government's progress toward sustainable development. The commissioner will review departments' sustainable development strategies and monitor the implementation of the action plan and the achievements of the objectives. The commissioner will be required by Bill C-83 to report annually to the House on anything related to environmental aspects of sustainable development he or she considers merits attention, including the extent to which action plans have been implemented and objectives met and on the number, subject matter and status of petitions received by ministers.

These amendments are historic and unprecedented. They have far reaching implications for the way the federal government does its business. They ensure that no matter who the auditor general happens to be, environment and sustainable development will have a high profile in the workforce. They will provide leadership on sustainable development by proactively promoting and operationalizing sustainable development within federal departments and across major economic sectors of our country. They will hold the government fully accountable to the public for its leadership and progress in making the shift to sustainable development.

As I look back over the past year or so I am gratified that the government has taken a red book commitment and engaged Parliament and Canadians in fulfilling it and in going beyond.

However, this is only the beginning of the road to making sustainable development a practical reality. Because of the bill, in the months and years ahead departments will be engaging stakeholders in the development and implementation of sustainable development strategies.

I know some members on the other side have said we should have gone further and that we did not go far enough. This is a very important start because it recognizes how important the environment is. It recognizes how important the environment is to future generations. It recognizes the importance of the environment to our future economic prosperity. It is no use enjoying tremendous economic prosperity now only to have it taken away from future generations.

We must ensure we protect for generations to come that we have a liveable environment, an environment with clean water, clean air, and that our decisions as a government fully take into consideration a development that is sustainable, a development that maintains a quality of life for future generations, a development that does not put hardship on any sector of society.

We have seen in some developing countries where when they do not respect the environment, when there is no clean water available, for example, sometimes the poor, the women have to pay a very heavy price when they have to go two miles to get it. Children die because they do not have clean water.

We have come a long way and I am sure my colleagues and the Minister of the Environment will continue to work on this. It is very important to me and to my constituency. In the west this is a very important issue and I am very thankful I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Vancouver South.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on some of the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver South.

I think all Canadians recognize the importance of paying close attention to what is happening with our environment, and certainly sustainability in our environment is a most important factor.

The member mentioned that Bill C-83 contains some amendments unprecedented in Parliament in dealing with the environment. We have had the auditor general's department operating as an exclusive body making a critique of the government, scrutinizing the operations for many years now.

We have seen report after report from the auditor general being critical of the different government departments and making recommendations only to have those reports go somewhere on a shelf and collect dust.

It is one thing to appoint a commission, a body or an individual to be independent, to look at how the government runs its business. It is one thing for the reports to be made, for the recommendations to be made, for the observations to be made clear, for that outside body to call for accountability. Another thing is for the government to act on those recommendations. We have not seen a very glowing record of governments acting on recommendations and criticism by the auditor general's department. We have not seen it in many years. Certainly the government has not done anything to stop that record of ignoring the auditor general's report.

As Bill C-83 contains some amendments unprecedented in Parliament in the field of environmental sustainability, I suggest the government begin to take some unprecedented steps in not only acknowledging the reports of the auditor general and not only receiving them but actually acting on them. It would be a most

unprecedented step if the government would start to act on some of the recommendations of the auditor general's department.

I will leave the hon. member with that thought. I am sure he will want to give me his assurances that whatever criticism and recommendations come from the new position will be acted on by the government.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement and his question.

I assure him that as a government we would not be setting up such a commissioner without taking full responsibility and ensuring that the reports that are issued are taken very seriously and that the government respond to those reports.

I can say that there have been many occasions in the House when the auditor general has brought forward concerns. On many occasions I have seen the minister or the appropriate department respond very quickly and assure the auditor general that they take those matters very seriously. I have seen members on the opposite side stand and quote the auditor general. Obviously they also take it very seriously. I know all members take the issues very seriously and bring them forward.

There are a lot of examples that have shown that governments do respond, take action, and investigate to assure that anything the auditor general puts out, where it is possible and where it is felt to be advantageous, is responded to and dealt with in an effective manner. I can assure the member that this will be continued by the government whenever those reports are issued.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments.

First, the member went on for a considerable time talking about clean water and the necessity of being aware how important it is. That almost goes without saying, but it does not hurt to repeat it. I wonder if the member is aware of the swim for the Fraser River effort by Finn Donnelly from British Columbia, who is currently swimming the entire length of the Fraser River in an effort to raise environmental awareness about the necessity for cleaning up what is really the major water artery in British Columbia.

Second, when he talks about sustainable development, on which coast of British Columbia does he think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done the best job on sustainable development in the area of fisheries, the east coast or the west coast?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley East said, clean water is a very important asset. As we saw recently in the World Bank report, clean water is going to be a very important resource for the world.

I also acknowledge the gentleman who is swimming the Fraser River to raise awareness of having clean water. An important thing to remember is when a resource like water is polluted it is expensive to restore the resource and bring it back. It is much easier to prevent pollution from happening in the first place.

As parliamentary secretary it has been a great experience to learn about sustainability and how all resources are so interdependent. Our ecosystem is so sensitive to change, and we do not understand a lot of it. We do not understand what water temperature does to fish. We do not understand the interdependence of our whole ecosystem. We have a lot to learn. We have to do a better job for our future generations.

I will do everything I can to ensure that we have sustainable development and do not take away from future generations. To the best of my ability I will try to achieve that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the deputy whip for the government the matter stands deferred until 5.30 p.m.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be read the second time and referred to a committee.