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.
