Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 3, 1995

.0835

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order!

Good morning, everyone. Today, we are beginning our consideration of Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act. We will hear from two witnesses, but before we proceed,Mr. Forseth has something to say about the work of this committee.

Mr. Forseth.

[English]

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Mr. Chairman, there are just two housekeeping items. First of all, I have talked to other members of the committee and they have said they would appreciate it if the meeting could start at 9 a.m. rather than 8:30 a.m. I am looking at the quorum we have here, and perhaps this is some proof of that. So perhaps you could consider scheduling the meetings for 9 a.m.

As well, I notice on the schedule of meetings that on Thursday it is proposed that we would hear from one witness and then enter into a clause by clause study of the bill. It doesn't seem to be very appropriate that we hear a witness and then jump right into clause by clause. There would be no chance or time for us to submit or even change amendments. So I would propose that the clause by clause be moved to the first available date following the week's break.

The Chairman: Are there any comments, suggestions or alternative views?

.0840

Mr. Forseth, we start at 8:30 a.m. because there are times when the committee room has to be relinquished. If we know that we won't make it by that time, which is usually 11 a.m., then we need this extra half hour. But certainly we'll keep it in mind for those who prefer the 9 a.m. start. I can't guarantee that it will always be the case, but certainly I will keep it in mind.

As to Thursday, that is a point very well taken. Should there be important views emerging in the consultation with the Environmental Commissioner for Ontario, you're quite right that it's too tight a schedule.

Maybe we can consider a meeting in the afternoon on Thursday, or, as you say, after the next week, which is a week off Parliament, if I remember correctly, and go into clause by clause the Monday or Tuesday of the week of October 16.

We'll take all that into account. Thank you for your suggestions.

Mr. Forseth: I think you'd find concurrence if we're going to seek counsel as well on having amendments done properly. It's important business, and it should be done in order. We wouldn't want to provide any unreasonable excuse for ruckus in this committee. We've had a congenial history so far, with a sense of cooperation, and I hope that can continue.

Concerning my 9 a.m. point of view, I did talk to some members from the Liberal side. They said they just wouldn't show until 9 a.m., period. So I'm suggesting that be done.

The Chairman: Well, two members were already here at 8:30 a.m., so I wouldn't want to invest too much time on that issue.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Forseth that this committee has been working very well. Perhaps his last comment, that the Liberal members just would not show, is indicative of a different direction with this committee, suggesting that the committee members are going to stand out like pouting children because they're not getting their time of meeting. I would prefer to talk to those committee members.

I know Mr. Lincoln, for a fact, is a very dedicated and hard-working committee member. I would hesitate to think that he wouldn't show just because he didn't like the time of our meeting. I know the kinds of hours he puts in, and if he's not here it's usually for a very good reason. So I would like you to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Forseth: I wasn't intending to infer that it was a temper tantrum, but individuals are in charge of their own schedules. They know what their duties are. Considering the other responsibilities they have in the morning, they would be choosing to show at 9 a.m. based on their other duties. It's not a matter of being petulant at all. It's in consideration of everything else that has to be done during the day.

The Chairman: Over the past two years we have met at times at 9 a.m. and at other times at 8:30 a.m., depending on the workload during that particular session, Mr. Forseth. When possible we'll take into account your suggestion. People will simply know that the time was chosen according to the work schedule and not due to capricious preferences.

Having done all that, perhaps it is appropriate now to welcome the Deputy Minister of the Environment, Mr. Cappe, and his colleague, Penny Gotzaman, Director General for Policy and Economics.

That's an interesting title. Perhaps you would like to explain to us why you singled out economics. Is that a new position?

Mr. Mel Cappe (Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment): No, Mr. Chairman, the position has been around for a couple of years, anyway, but the integration of environment and economics in setting policy is important in the area of environment. If we want to make sustainable development real, we would like to see that integration. While it's everyone's responsibility, not just that of the director general, the director general plays an important role in trying to provide that integration.

.0845

The Chairman: Welcome to the committee. We invite you to let us have the benefit of your views on the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Cappe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I was just saying, it is important for the department to bring about the integration of economics and environment in setting its policy. Bill C-83 is a good example of one such initiative and we are prepared to discuss it.

[English]

Bill C-83 is a result of this committee's first report, a result that will have far-reaching implications in giving the government the opportunity to show leadership in integrating economic and environmental concerns and in manifesting sustainable development.

In the last number of years we have found that the issue of sustainable development is something people find easy to conceptualize but difficult to practise. We think Bill C-83 gives us the opportunity to put those principles into operation and to ingrain and embody the principles of sustainable development in all the government's decision making.

The bill covers government operations on the one hand and government policy on the other. I think it's important to see that distinction and to consider how the sustainable development strategies required under Bill C-83 will deal with both sides of that equation, government as polluter or consumer and government as regulator and determiner of policy.

The bill is founded on the principle of public accountability, and the foundation of Bill C-83 is a continuation of the principle of public accountability presently embodied in the Auditor General Act. The only power of the Auditor General is to make public the actions of government and that's what this bill is founded on.

By definition, the sustainable development strategies outlined in the bill will include departments' objectives and action plans to further sustainable development. The strategies will contain concrete goals and action plans for integrating sustainable development into departmental policies, programs and operations.

This is an attempt to move the principles of sustainable development from a concept to a real practice, and, as I said at the outset, it is not only the job of the director general of policy and economics to integrate environment and economics, it's the job of everyone in the department. Indeed, it's the job of all Canadians to try to find sustainable development practices.

Similarly, this bill makes it clear that it is not only the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for sustainable development. Rather, it creates the obligation for each minister to show how they are furthering the principles of sustainable development, and this hopefully makes each minister, in practice, a sustainable development minister.

Earlier this year, following the committee's report and the government's response, the government issued A Guide to Green Government. This is an important document because it's seen as an important step in the continuum of this projet de loi and in how we will implement it. I draw the attention of committee members to the Guide to Green Government, and I note that in the frontispiece the document is signed by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and all the ministers of the cabinet. This is an important statement of principle and practice, of how the government will prepare its sustainable development strategies. It is an attempt to set in place a framework that allows the government to show Parliament - and therefore the public - how it is going to meet those principles.

.0850

Mr. Chairman, Environment Canada has an obligation - although I want to make sure every department becomes a department of sustainable development - and we recognize the environment department has a higher onus. Therefore, while the bill calls for the tabling of sustainable development strategies within two years, it is certainly Environment Canada's objective - and the minister said this upon tabling of the bill - to table our strategy within one year.

We think this is an opportunity for the government to make significant progress. I note that the amendments to the Auditor General Act create a new institution that does not exist anywhere else in the world. Having an auditor, a parliamentary officer who will be a check on government and the government's capacity and ability to meet the principles of sustainable development, will hopefully change the way government does business.

I note three significant elements of the bill.

The first is changing the long title of the Auditor General Act. The title becomes the Auditor General Act including sustainable development, monitoring and reporting. That will have a subtle effect in changing the way - I hope it will have a subtle effect - the Auditor General's office does all of its business.

Furthermore, the explicit inclusion of environmental effects as a criterion by which the Office of the Auditor General will do its work is an important element of this bill. This is more than setting up a commissioner of sustainable development. The committee heard the Auditor General say that the Auditor General's office is now doing a lot of work on assessing environmental effects. This makes it quite explicit that Parliament will be telling the Auditor General that it wants these environmental effects considered.

Finally, setting up the commissioner raises the profile of the audit of environment and sustainable development within the context of the Auditor General's office.

Moreover, we build upon that inherent independence of the Auditor General. My previous job was in the Treasury Board Secretariat, and I can assure you that the words of the Auditor General are taken very seriously by officers of the government. Therefore, I think this adds a great deal of clout to the office of the commissioner.

[Translation]

In closing, let me just say that this bill is the culmination of this committee's work and it could substantially change the way the government does business.

[English]

In a way I see Bill C-83 as a bit of a Trojan Horse. It will very subtly change the way all the officers of the Government of Canada do their business, because it will force them to take into account in a very indirect and subtle way the principles of sustainable development and will ingrain environmental sustainable development into all federal decision making.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

To facilitate frequent and numerous interventions, I propose to have a round for one question from each member. We can perhaps build up on the sequence of rounds, rather than going to fixed limits that prolong the process and do not allow for flexibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau, you have a question? I intend to give you other opportunities, but I will start by letting each person ask one question.

[English]

Next are Mr. Forseth and Mrs. Kraft Sloan. Hopefully we'll do at least two, if not three, rounds.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau (Anjou - Rivière-des-Prairies): Currently, we have the impression that the Department of the Environment wants to bring the other departments on board as partners in its plan to achieve sound environmental management across Canada. What kind of control will the Department of the Environment have over the action plans of other departments since the latter must establish these plans themselves?

.0855

Mr. Cappe: "Partner" is a good word to describe how we intend to apply the provisions of the bill once it is adopted. We will be a partner of the other departments. We will not control their actions.

The management principles set out in management manuals are established by Treasury Board ministers. We have already had discussions with our counterparts at the Treasury Board Secretariat with a view to finding a way to incorporate sustainable development principles into these manuals and to determining how the government will apply the bill's provisions.

The principles established for all departments are set out in the Guide to Green Government. We will look to these principles when we draw up our action plans and strategies. Therefore, we will not be monitoring the actions of the other departments but rather, as you stated, acting as their partner.

We are prepared to work with the other departments to establish management practices and so forth. However, requirements will be determined either by the department, the Treasury Board Secretariat or Treasury Board ministers. We will be acting on two fronts: we will be a partner and we will be trying to impact the way in which Treasury Board management manuals are used.

Mr. Pomerleau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci, monsieur Pomerleau. Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

Welcome to the committee.

There seems to be somewhat of a variance between what this committee recommended and what has been presented by the minister, specifically regarding the commissioner's office.

There was thought of having a separate auditor general of the environment. In some quarters it's being said that now we perhaps have a mere clerk within the Auditor General's existing unit.

Can you describe what is apparent to you in the significance of the office of the commissioner itself? Does it really add anything distinct from the authority of the Auditor General to simply hire a person of stature to run the environmental unit within the Auditor General's office?

It could be said we now have legislation to pin a label on somebody who is already functioning there.

Mr. Cappe: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important question you should ask the Auditor General. I don't purport to answer for the Auditor General.

Let me take a crack at the question anyway. The bill does two things. It creates some obligations for the Office of the Auditor General and it establishes the commissioner and creates some obligations for the commissioner.

Proposed section 23(1) of the bill says:

So the commissioner has his or her own statutory responsibilities. Notwithstanding that it fits within the ensemble of the Auditor General's office - and I've seen some of the references to the notion of the clerk - I think this commissioner actually has some statutory responsibilities. The commissioner will monitor the extent to which the departments have met the objectives and have implemented the plans. It's not the Auditor General who does that. It is the commissioner.

The Auditor General has other powers as created under proposed section 22 in dealing with petitions, but the actual assessment of the extent to which the objectives determined by departments are actually met and action plans actually implemented is going to be done by the commissioner qua commissioner.

.0900

I don't purport to answer for the Auditor General, but:

Go to the original Auditor General Act. Under section 3, it says:

With no intention to disparage the integrity of the Office of the Auditor General, as an auditor, he brings certain talents to the capacity of auditing that need supplementing, I would argue. Certainly it's the government's view that you want to provide a different perspective to deal with the assessment of sustainable development principles.

The Auditor General indicated in testimony before this committee that he is already doing a great deal of auditing of environmental practices and he's assessing value for money in an environmental context, but he is not....

Here, I go to an amendment. Proposed subparagraph 7(2)(f) says that the Auditor General will be assessing the extent to which:

I would argue that while the Auditor General, as an auditor, may be well positioned to do that, he would benefit from the supplementary expertise that would come from such a commissioner. So it's in that sense that we see this as a balance.

We're setting this up within the Auditor General's office, and the Auditor General has that clout I spoke of earlier. At the same time, we're supplementing it with a commissioner who will support the Auditor General, or assist the Auditor General, as the act says. At the same time, the commissioner will have independent statutory responsibility.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Under the proposed legislation, departments that are in schedule I of the Financial Administration Act are the ones required to put together sustainable development strategies.

Maybe you can help me with this so I understand it a little better. When we take a look at those government agencies or departments that aren't considered category I.... For example, I see something like CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency. It would seem to me that CIDA would be a really good example of a department or agency that should be required to undertake a sustainable development strategy.

Could you just clarify for me what all of this means? Why was the decision made only to do category I, and how could we ensure that agencies or departments like CIDA are actually required to do environmental sustainable developmental strategies?

Mr. Cappe: Let me just give a general response. I'll ask Ms Gotzaman to address the question more fully.

One of the things that we are faced with is trying to deal with the instruments we have available. So the only really complete listing of government institutions that exists under the Financial Administration Act is in those schedules. So we used schedule I.

But in my answer to Mr. Pomerleau in dealing with the issue of the Treasury Board's management requirements, it's our intention certainly to require other agencies of the government to bind them through administrative processes to comply with the act, although the act doesn't oblige them to comply.

These are very close to being departments, but are not formally scheduled, like CIDA, as well as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which is another agency that acts very much like a department, does a lot of activity within government, and has sustainable development and environmental implications.

Ms Penny Gotzaman (Assistant Director General, Policy and Economics Directorate, Policy and Communications, Environment Canada): I would only add that schedule I was seen to pick up the key departments. There is, of course, this provision in proposed section 24 that will permit ministers to recommend to the Governor in Council that the departments or agencies they are responsible for should be obligated to conform to the statable strategy requirements of this act. In fact, agencies such as CIDA have worked very closely with the department in developing the guide. My sense is that they're very keen to opt in.

.0905

The Chairman: Madam Payne.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I am just wondering about proposed section 24. Proposed paragraph 24(1)(a) provides that departments must prepare a strategy in two years. I think you referred to one year in your remarks.

I am just wondering how this will play out if you have, for instance, two departments that have overlapping responsibilities. How will you deal with that if one department is ready with their strategy and another one is not? What will the time elements be?

Mr. Cappe: That's a very good question. My sense is that it'll be the second department that has to ensure consistency with the sustainable development strategy of the first.

In looking around departments right now, many departments have environmental management plans not so much for their policy, but for their operations. The extent to which the Department of Public Works and Government Services has an environmental management plan affects the operations of all departments.

What we have said here in the bill is that departments will have to table their strategies within two years. I think there is an incentive for each department to get out ahead of its colleagues in getting its principles laid before the House first.

It is our intention to work closely with the departments we work with to ensure that our plan will be consistent with the plans that others are doing, but we're going to get out the principles we think are important as quickly as we possibly can.

There's a bit of competition in there, but I think the issue of consistency is one that parliamentary committees will be able to then deal with once the strategies are tabled in the House.

For instance, we work very closely with the fisheries department in a lot of our aquatic ecosystem research. Our sustainable development plans will have to address how we will work with that department. We couldn't do that alone; we'll have to work with them in establishing that plan.

That's going to take place in the normal course of events. I don't think we need to prescribe it in legislation. I think the issue will resolve itself as we work through the development plans.

The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): I appreciate Mr. Cappe visiting with us today. He has had considerable experience in his short time with the department in dealing with this particular issue. I know that he had an interest in the committee hearings before the report was written.

My question is quite simple. As the deputy minister and as an individual close to this, do you feel that this Bill C-83 is as good as it gets for us? The recommendations of the committee did go further than the bill proposes. The chairman himself, in remarks in the House, talked about the need to move to deal with crown corporations, not just agencies. There's talk about dealing with our international commitments and the ability to monitor and report on our international commitments.

The environmental offices around the country in various organizations have said that the bill, at this point, doesn't go far enough and that there are other areas we should be looking at. As someone who must assist in the implementation of this, is this as good as it gets?

.0910

Mr. Cappe: That is an interesting way to put it Mr. Taylor, so I will duck. Is this as good as it gets? I would think this may be as effective as you can make it, let me put it that way.

The objective that I think the committee is trying to promote - this is a bureaucrat's assessment, so I am not speaking here on behalf of the minister - is that this will fundamentally change the way government operates and the way it does policy. So in terms of the objectives of the committee, I think that this bill goes about as far as one could construct a piece of legislation to go in meeting the objectives that the committee set.

I recall when the committee's report came out and the challenge we faced in government in trying to respond to that. It was to find a way that would meet the objectives of the committee's report and still reflect the reality of management and bureaucratic process, if you will.

That is why, to come back to the Auditor General, embedding this in the Office of the Auditor General is so advantageous. It's because departments have normal practices in dealing with the Auditor General, so you don't have to establish new relationships.

On the other hand, with the commissioner, that will change that relationship.

I am not sure what ``as good as it gets'' means. I think this is as effective as it can get.

I could deal with some of the specifics of the other points you raised, like crown corporations and internationals, but it just strikes me that being as broad as it is forces departments to think more broadly. The more specific the law would be, the easier it would be for departments to shoot at the targets that Parliament gives it and satisfy as opposed to maximize.

What we in Environment Canada will do in looking at developing our sustainable development plan will be to try to find a way of being as broad and all-encompassing as possible, because we know that the Auditor General will be looking at all of our activities. I think this is as effective as you can make it.

I started out by saying that I was going to speak as an official. I would note that the minister, in the House in second reading debate, noted that she had intended this would establish a commissioner and meet the objectives of the committee's report. What we were aiming at throughout, in designing the bill, was to meet the objectives of the committee's report.

The Chairman: Mr. Deputy, you said that the bill will change the way government operates. My question is focused on yardsticks that each department will be adopting. In other words, will each department develop its own yardsticks against which it will measure its progress toward sustainable development?

Let me give you an example. The Department of Transport may establish a very weak sustainable development plan, and therefore a commensurately weak yardstick. It may continue, for instance, to slow down the process of improving the performance of fleets, the reduction of sulphur content in diesel fuel, and all other related issues of reducing pollution caused by surface transportation. It may also decide to continue to favour highways over railways and still operate within a sustainable development policy set by its own department against which it will measure its own yardstick.

.0915

The Department of Natural Resources may still rely on voluntary compliance with the reduction of carbon dioxide. It may even promote policies for further dependence on fossil fuels and still operate within its own sustainable development plan approved by the department and considered every year by Parliament.

Which yardsticks, in other words, will be applied? Will there be as many yardsticks as there are departments, or will there be one yardstick?

Mr. Cappe: I can't give you a yes or no answer. There are a couple of things one has to take into account when considering the answer.

To some extent, you're correct in saying that the department sets its own objectives. It can set very low hurdles and make it easy to jump over them. So the department will set its objectives and put in an action plan, and the commissioner and the Auditor General will then come in and ask whether it has met its objectives and action plan. So to that extent you're right; you can set a low barrier and make it easy to jump over.

I would add, however, that there are two constraining factors on objectives set by departments. The first is the petitions. The public - and here I think we can rely on members of Parliament representing their constituents - environmental groups, and groups, for that matter, in some industries submit petitions to ministers indicating their concern over practices that are inconsistent with sound sustainable development practices.

The second constraint is the commissioner himself. I really should have answered Mr. Forseth's question by pointing to this as well in terms of the activities of the commissioner qua commissioner. In proposed subsection 23(2) it says:

That is a very broad ambit, and a very broad power for the commissioner to play the conscience, if you will, of government departments.

I would expect that the commissioner would do an assessment of the adequacy of those objectives and advise the House whether the objectives that a department set were indeed too low.

It goes on to say: including the extent to which they've met the objectives and implemented the plans. But the word ``including'' makes it quite clear that the powers are not constrained and are quite broad.

So I think between the petitions and the powers in proposed subsection 23(2) there's really quite a good constraint on departments giving themselves very easy targets to hit.

Ms Gotzaman: I would just add that at the front end, in developing their objectives, departments are committed to consulting with their stakeholders, and that commitment is reflected in the government's response to the committee's report.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair recognizes Mr. Pomerleau.

Mr. Pomerleau: My question is along the same lines as that of Mr. Caccia. We know that the Auditor General of Canada has a very clear mandate to analyse thoroughly, using the financial resources available to his Office, the way in which the government is managed. He analyzes how the money collected is expended. The federal Auditor General's mandate does not extend to auditing uncollected sums of money or, in other words, to auditing components of tax laws that have been passed and that prevent the government from collecting certain sums of money. First and foremost, the Auditor General analyzes government expenditures.

My initial sense is that the Commissioner of the Environment, if excluded at the outset from the process of policy formulation, will be doing the very same thing as the Auditor General, that is he will be auditing initiatives that have been taken, not future actions.

Mr. Cappe: That's a good question. I would emphasize that the Auditor General focusses on issues from the very beginning.

.0920

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Auditor General Act, the Auditor General has the authority to review accounts and spending. For this reason, the following has been added to section 7(2):

The position of Commissioner of the Environment has also been created. I should have mentioned this when responding earlier to Mr. Forseth. The duties of the Commissioner are set out in section 23(2), which reads as follows:

In my opinion, the Commissioner should have broad review powers and this provision gives him the authority to report to the House on any issue. Therefore, even if the tendency of the Auditor General is to look back , I suggest you ask him if that's all he does. I think he always tries to look forward where government programs are concerned and to assess circumstances.

The Auditor General does not, however, have the option of commenting on policy issues. In my view, section 23(2) does not authorize him to do so. Such issues are discussed within the confines of the House of Commons. These are the issues for which you, as politicians, are accountable to government. Distinctions must, therefore, be drawn between the role of members of the House and that of the Office of the Auditor General.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: I would again like to look specifically at the role of the commissioner. Perhaps at this point we can direct our minds to the commissioner as distinct from the Ambassador for Environment, Mr. John Fraser, and maybe describe and expand on some differences as well as some parallel similarities. In the future, will there be room for both? Will both have viable roles? I see some interesting associations there.

Mr. Cappe: Perhaps this is an opportunity to deal with the issue of international commitments that Mr. Taylor raised.

To my mind, Ambassador Fraser's role as Ambassador for Environment is really to represent Canada abroad on issues of sustainable development. Indeed, Mr. Fraser has led a number of delegations to conferences of the parties of international agreements. He has led delegations on behalf of Canada to the commission on sustainable development at the United Nations. He has generally represented Canada on issues of environment and sustainable development in those international fora.

The commissioner, on the other hand, has a role as an agent of Parliament, not of the government, in holding government to account. This is a really important distinction: the representational role of the ambassador and the accountability role of the commissioner. I would hope the principles of sustainable development they use would be similar.

.0925

Indeed, the Guide to Green Government I referred to earlier establishes outlines of what sustainable development strategies should look like that departments would be presenting to Parliament and the factors departments should take into account in presenting those strategies.

The Ambassador for Environment plays an important role in the Department of Foreign Affairs in establishing its sustainable development strategy. I know that the ambassador chairs the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade committee on environment and sustainable development and is responsible for preparing that department's sustainable development plan and strategy.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the ambassador have just recently signed a sustainable development plan, or an environmental management plan, for that department. Mr. Fraser has played the role of chair in developing that plan. It was just made available to employees in the department last month.

So the ambassador is playing a role on behalf of the government, and the commissioner is playing a role on behalf of Parliament in holding the government to account.

If I could just go on to the issue of international commitments, again, the ambassador plays that role in negotiations and representation internationally.

The sustainable development plans and strategies that departments will table and the reporting against those plans that will take place in the main estimates, or however the public accounts committee deals with the revision to the accountability regime, will, in the appropriate context, report on the extent to which a department has met its international obligations on environment and sustainable development.

To use an example, the Department of the Environment, with the Department of Foreign Affairs, will consider our obligations under the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, to consider what our obligations are, our plan of action to meet those obligations, and then hold ourselves to account in disclosure, at least, to Parliament on what we've done to meet those obligations.

The commissioner will then take that and say whether they've done a good job or not. I think there's an opportunity there for the commissioner to play the role of holding government to account that will be quite important. Mr. Fraser, as ambassador, will play the role of representing us in those international negotiations.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Mr. Steckle, this morning each member has been asking a question. It's Mrs. Payne's turn to ask a question. If we proceed according to protocol it would be your turn. You may want to think of a question or you may want to pass for now.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I just arrived in town, so I'll pass right now.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Okay.

Mrs. Payne.

Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just thinking, in terms of petitions that may be presented and the time limit, that I'm not altogether familiar with this department. It's my first time serving.

I think the time limit we're looking at right now is 120 days. What happens with petitions that would ordinarily need a shorter response time? Is there a provision within the act to respond quicker than that, and how much more quickly?

Mr. Cappe: The 120 days is seen, at least in the first instance, as a limit on departments' ability to respond. They must respond. Proposed subsection 22(3) states that:

So clearly, if a simple question is asked or a question is asked that does not require a lot of analysis or preparation, departments would be encouraged to respond more quickly. Indeed, the commissioner is charged with reporting to Parliament on the extent to which departments have met those obligations. So I think there will be an incentive for departments to respond as quickly as possible. The ministers have a statutory obligation to respond within 120 days or take the supplementary action of requesting a longer time.

.0930

I would just note that this is not a frivolous action on the part of the minister, and it requires the minister, personally, to take that action. It is an important addition to the bill when it says minister, personally. I know of no other legislation where it has obliged a minister to take action, personally.

So I think there's an attempt in here to allow for departments to go earlier, require them to go within 120 days and, only in the most unusual circumstances, take longer.

Mrs. Payne: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Mr. Steckle, you're passing for now?

Mr. Taylor, please.

Mr. Taylor: On the second round I'm wondering if we can't be a little more specific about the department's strategic plan. You were saying you want to have it out in a year. You're probably in a better place to know what the act is calling for and what the new auditor may be looking for, so I'm just wondering if you can be more specific now in terms of what your department is going to do with regard to the strategy and the action plan. Who have you identified to do it? How much time have you allocated? How much money are you expecting to expend in addition to normal resources to achieve the goal you've now set for yourself? Maybe I should go even a bit further to add, what criteria are you using to establish the plan on which you want the auditor to monitor your results?

Mr. Cappe: Let me try to take those in order.

Internally, we have started with the Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services, who is responsible for finance and administration in the department, who will begin the process for outlining the sustainable development plan and strategy. Laura Talbot-Allan is the assistant deputy minister and her job will be to focus on operations, so I will start with the operations side. She will be preparing the objectives and the action plans across the whole department vis-à-vis the sustainable development plan, and she is also responsible for all of our accountability documents, our main estimates, and all of that.

That's why I put it there in a coordination role. She will be coordinating the actions of all of the assistant deputy ministers in the department who will be responsible for presenting their plans and objectives and their action plans to meet those objectives. This is me speaking now, as deputy minister: I want to hold to account each of those responsibility centres in the department, their requirements to meet their objectives. So we will go through a process of establishing objectives and then developing the action plans to meet them. Then in my annual review of their performance I will take into account the extent to which they've met them.

It's a little easier in the Department of the Environment because virtually everything we do affects sustainable development. In a way, what I'm going to be doing is taking all the normal processes of the department and fitting them into that accountability régime and taking the accountability régime we use now and merely directing it toward meeting the obligations under this act. In many places, departments have not thought about what they do or how what they do affects sustainable development and the environment, and what this bill will do is force them to think about that.

So the ADM Corporate Services will play that coordinating role. She will be responsible for the operations side, and then each of the assistant deputy ministers will be responsible for their area of expertise vis-à-vis the policies and programs that they're responsible for administering.

To answer your last question, in terms of what are the criteria we'll use, the government has given an indication in A Guide to Green Government of the criteria it will use. I'll just identify a couple of points. There are three core concepts identified: sustainable development recognizes the integration of economic and environmental issues; an integrated approach to planning and decision-making; and a commitment to equity. So this integrated approach must deal with issues that go beyond the hard edge of the economy, if you will. It identifies sustainable development objectives.

.0935

I'll just read some of the chapter headings: ``Sustaining Our Natural Resources - Sustainable Jobs, Communities and Industries''; ``Protecting the Health of Canadians and of Ecosystems''; ``Meeting our International Obligations'', which again comes back to one of the issues you raised; and ``Promoting Equity''.

The kinds of things we consider in that chapter are fair distribution between costs and benefits between generations, and sharing a fair distribution of the current costs and benefits of sustainable development.

The next chapter is ``Improving Our Quality of Life and Well-being''. Then it goes on to identify the manifestation of ``An Integrated Approach''; the move to ``Full-Cost Accounting'', taking into account all of the costs of an action, not just the financial cost; ``Environmental Assessment'', integrating that in the decision-making process; and an ``Ecosystem Management'' approach. It talks about something based on sound science and analysis. Again, science is one of the critical issues for the department in terms of determining its objections.

It talks about working together. Ms Gotzaman referred to having to work with stakeholders in developing our objectives and our action plan. So that's an important element of it.

I could go on, but I think the chapter headings of every department's sustainable development strategy are really in A Guide to Green Government.

For some departments' activities, because the mandate of each department is different, the bill and this guide allow each department to tailor, if you will - pardon the pun - their plan to the needs of their mandate.

So it's not a cookie-cutter approach, but it does give some guidance as to how to construct them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Madam Kraft Sloan, s'il vous plaît.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Just to follow up a little bit more on my previous question, you had indicated to me that for any agencies or organizations that approached, that looked like departments, there would be a Governor in Council order to direct them to undertake a sustainable development strategy.

Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't work. My concern is that it takes a lot of time, and sometimes people are clever at negotiating that this doesn't happen.

I'm just wondering if there is any way in the current legislation we can amend it to ensure that this happens ahead of time without having to go through this kind of process.

Mr. Cappe: I'm going to find myself in an awkward position here, trying to advise the committee as well as trying to represent the government. But let me suggest, to be quite open about it - and again I go back to my time in the Treasury Board Secretariat - that a number of agencies exist because they were created by appropriation acts. It's the vote of Parliament that essentially establishes the agencies.

So CIDA does not exist in statute. CIDA was created by a vote of Parliament in the Appropriation Act, and it's the vote wording that established the agency.

I'm not a lawyer - and obviously you will have to seek counsel - but I don't know that there's a way of really doing that. It's because of this that we've adopted this notion that an agency can be listed in discretionary fashion.

I suppose there may be a way of identifying some selected agencies and adding them to a schedule to this act. I really don't know the answer to that.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What about crown corporations?

Mr. Cappe: That's a different issue. The crown corporations of the Government of Canada are listed in the schedules of the Financial Administration Act.

In answering Mr. Taylor's earlier question, I mentioned that the mandate of each department is different. It therefore is important to allow the flexibility to deal with each department in a different fashion, but every department will have to comply.

Crown corporations cover such a wide spectrum of activity that it was felt it would be difficult to list the crown corporations in the schedules of the Financial Administration Act and subject them to this act.

.0940

If you look at crown corporations, which have a public interest mandate, many of them are in competition with the private sector. In subjecting them to this you create competitive implications, which make it more difficult for them to compete and which could contradict the legislated mandate of those corporations as created in statute or elsewhere.

It was felt that for this moment it is better to have a couple of years of experience under our belt in complying with the legislation. Our suggestion was that Parliament consider at that time, after a few years of experience, whether subjecting crown corporations would be appropriate.

In any kind of review of this legislation four or five years hence it might be worthwhile considering that, but it is our view at this point that we don't know enough about the implications of a sustainable development strategy and playing them out in the House of Commons and the implications for those crown corporations.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Before we start a third round, if time permits and on the assumption that there are no other questions on the second round, the chair would like to ask a question, with your permission.

The picture that emerges before our eyes is this. Each department, as the deputy indicated to us, will measure its own progress against its own yardstick.

At the same time, though, you reminded us of the guide, which contains a number of principles and criteria that have been adopted by the minister of the day and by the entire cabinet.

In addition to that, we have at least two departments - the new Department of Industry and the new Department of Natural Resources - that have the magic words ``sustainable development'' included as one of the goals, obligations or objectives of their respective ministers.

Consider the fact that in the legislation of the two new departments, principles are not included. Consider the fact that the guide is a very important document, but nevertheless a guide. Ministers come and go, and probably new ministers will not be asked to sign again the guide signed by their predecessors. Therefore that commitment may last only as long as that particular minister is around. And consider the fact that each department will be proceeding according to its own established yardstick.

Don't you think it would be desirable to have an amendment to this bill whereby, in addition to the definition of ``sustainable development'', which, as we all know, is very broad and very long-term, there would be an insertion by way of an amendment of basic principles that would guide the commissioner for sustainable development?

Mr. Cappe: Clearly if I had thought that we would have reflected it in the legislation. This is a very legitimate, substantive issue here. The way the government has tried to deal with it - and I'll just give a few excerpts from the guide - the onus is on departments.

If I look at the really significant changes that have taken place in government, they've come from the bottom up, if you will. They've come from departments fundamentally changing the way they think.

I stated in my opening remarks that the intention here was to make every department a department of sustainable development. It's too easy, in a funny kind of way, for Parliament to say ``Here's what a department should do'' and then have departments try to shoot at those targets and provide just the minimum requirements to meet them rather than have departments try to stretch and extend the goals and move further.

.0945

I'll note some excerpts here. This is the minister speaking on the front of this piece:

In the document it says:

It goes on to say:

It's with that in mind that I think the government has chosen to leave this as a guide, as opposed to making it prescriptive in the legislation.

I would just note that there is guidance in the legislation, using the Brundtland definition, defining sustainable development as meaning ``development that meets the needs...''.

The Chairman: We know all that, but it is so broad and vague that it doesn't provide much guidance.

Mr. Cappe: Again, I think it's the view of the government that it is better to leave it to the department to stretch and to recognize the diversity in the issues in which they deal, that it would be very difficult to identify in a prescriptive fashion in legislation.

As well, I think it's fair to say that since 1992 we've seen a change in our understanding of sustainable development. We talked at Rio about environment and economy. Now, in a growing fashion, we talk about environment, economy, and social concerns. Our evolving understanding of that can be reflected more easily in those sustainable strategies if the law is not prescriptive.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: I'm looking at page 64 of the red book, where it says:

The red book then goes on to say ``The gap between rhetoric and action'', and I'm looking at some of that now.

I would like you to highlight the powers of the Auditor General as distinct from those of the proposed commissioner, and maybe address more generally why we should have a commissioner, why we should not just give the additional helping powers that are in this bill to the Auditor General. In other words, if we're not going to fulfil the red book promise of a separate office, then what's the utility in the choice of a commissioner as subject to the Auditor General?

I can see the efficacious effects of some of the other mandates in the bill, but the whole effect of the commissioner itself is somewhat questionable, as it's falling so far short of the red book promise.

Perhaps you could highlight that.

Mr. Cappe: Again, I think part of the intention in setting up the commissioner is - I don't want to overstate this, and again this is a question you should ask the Auditor General -

Mr. Forseth: I will.

Mr. Cappe: - to have an officer who plays an advocacy role within the office, as well as an officer of Parliament who plays an advocacy role within government, in terms of the relationships that the commissioner might have with line departments.

So it has two elements. One is the formal powers, and I gave you some of that answer before. But the other element is having an officer who can play an important role within the Office of the Auditor General, as well as in the relations with departments.

To give you an example, the Auditor General has been looking at the way in which the government does its environmental management. In the Auditor General's recent reports we've seen a number of references to the management of hazardous waste, contaminated sites, etc. Those were done by specific auditings.

What having an officer in the Office of the Auditor General does that changes that is trying to imbue the principles of sustainable development throughout the entire office. Again, this isn't to suggest that the Auditor General is not committed to those principles, but bureaucratic dynamics matter, and this is an opportunity to have in place someone whose job is always to consider those perspectives of sustainable development.

In addition, having the commissioner, as I noted earlier, have these authorities to report, to raise issues for Parliament and to assess the performance of.... In assessing the performance of the government on its petitions, for instance, I guess you could easily say the Auditor General could play that role. I take that point.

.0950

In assessing the extent to which category I departments have met the objectives and implemented the plans, once again the opportunity here is to have someone who is not necessarily a ``qualified auditor'', as described in section 3 of the Auditor General Act...but the Auditor General needs to bring together a broad array of expertise. This is just a way of ensuring that this happens.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Anyone interested in having an insight and better understanding of the dynamics of the bureaucracy to which the deputy referred may want to attend the meetings of the public accounts committee.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'd like to go back to Mr. Caccia's concerns. These are very fundamental concerns having to do with the yardsticks.

Actually, there are two sets of yardsticks or understandings here. One, what does sustainable development mean? Second, what are the elements of a sustainable development strategy?

We had KPMG come before the committee last year. They had conducted a fairly comprehensive study from across the country looking at different industries. The bulk of those industries, about 80% to 90%, had stated that they had environmental management plans. But when they were asked if they had certain very basic elements of what would be considered part of an environmental management plan, they found out that 2% to 3% seemed to be the average in most industries. In effect, these companies did not really have an environmental management plan.

My concern, like that of the chair's, is around what sustainable development means and what constitutes a sustainable development strategy, what are its elements. The response you've been giving us is that there is A Guide to Green Government, which certainly is very helpful. It helps people understand.

As well, the commissioner is able at any time to make comments regarding sustainable development, for example, if one of the departments submitted a plan that was superficial or in the estimation of the commissioner wasn't really working toward a shift towards sustainability. But it seems to me that this is a bit of a waste of time. If we could do it at the front end so that there was a clear understanding on behalf of the departments about what actually constituted sustainable development, i.e., a set of principles, as well as a clearer understanding of what are the elements that would comprise a strategy.... I'm just wondering how we might be able to accomplish that.

Mr. Cappe: I'm afraid I'm going to give you a general answer again, but in a way, you've given my answer.

In reference to the KPMG testimony, KPMG finds that environmental management systems are prevalent - but not really. I think you have to look at the way our understanding of environment management systems has evolved.

If you look at the issues an EMS would have looked at five years ago, you'd find it was much more narrow and constrained than an EMS that would be done now. Look at ISO 9000. In the ISO 9000 regime you have elements of an environmental management system, but the evolution in our thinking about management and about environment has led to the development, through the International Standards Organization, of an ISO 14000 regime, which is much more of an environmental management system. This would apply to the private sector, obviously, but in operations could apply to government as well.

I guess what I would like to ensure is that we not constrain ourselves in legislation to that evolving understanding of what are good environmental practices.

.0955

The second element of my answer is that if we had tried to define good sustainable development practices as recently as three or four years ago, around the time of Rio, we would have had a much more narrow definition and a much more narrowly defined set of criteria than those in the Guide to Green Government.

I would like to ensure that we have the flexibility to adapt and to evolve without necessarily taking up the time of Parliament. It is that notion that here in Parliament you will be creating a framework that creates certain obligations on the part of departments, and yet is not so constraining as to inhibit their ability over the course of the next three or four years to go further than can even be envisaged now. The EMS reports I've seen from the private sector vary widely. Some of them are focused on water and energy. Some of them cover the full range of environmental effects, looking at cradle-to-grave management and all of that.

I hope that the departments will go well beyond environmental management systems in sustainable strategies and will deal with the issue of operations and programs and policies. It's quite clear from A Guide to Green Government that's going to be required by what's stated in policy.

Once again, I point to the role of Treasury Board in setting the management principles. From what is proposed in this bill, we'd have Parliament saying that we're to look at the environmental effects in the context of sustainable development, but that the sustainable development strategies go well beyond that and include talking about the full range of our understanding of sustainable development. I'm arguing for evolution.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I understand that the elements the KPMG study examined were questions asking if there were objectives and guidelines. It was the process of doing it, but the questions didn't ask if this was a cradle-to-grave or a cradle-to-cradle process. The questions were: do you have an objective and do you have time lines? Those were pretty basic things that were missing.

The Chairman: Are there any quick and short questions, Mrs. Payne or Mr. Taylor?

Mrs. Payne.

Mrs. Payne: I would like to follow up on the question I asked earlier with regard to the time element. I'm thinking of a petitioner who doesn't get the response that he expects or that would satisfy him. What is his recourse?

Following that, is the department or the government then responsible for getting some action taken within a given period of time, and how long a response time would we be looking at?

Mr. Cappe: Again, I would defer to the Auditor General for some of this. Look at the Auditor General's other powers even in respect of expenditures. If a government department overspends its appropriation, the Auditor General can merely inform the House. The Auditor General doesn't have any punitive authority or any mandatory authority in terms of mandating a department's reaction. That's true even for expenditures.

In this context, it is equally true that it is merely the accountability régime that is imposed on departments. So the Auditor General and the commissioner will report to Parliament on what departments said they would do and what departments have done. Then it's up to Parliament to hold ministers accountable as to whether they've set adequate objectives or have met the objectives. It comes back to the fundamentals of parliamentary accountability.

I would like to add a comment, Mr. Chairman, in response to the point made by Mrs. Kraft Sloan, who said their criticism was that the private sector lacked objectives. We've picked up on some of that by identifying both objectives and action plans as requirements in sustainable development plans. I'm not sure that that goes as far as you wanted.

The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: I have a short comment and a brief question, based on the yardstick arguments put forward by yourself, Mr. Chairman, and by Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

.1000

It appears to me that perhaps we're going at this the wrong way. A Guide to Green Government has established some pretty good criteria for departments to operate. Instead of asking each and every department to commit two years' worth of resources and person power to writing their own guide to green government, maybe an environmental sensitivity training program for deputy ministers and ministers would be more appropriate.

Then you could implement the terms of A Guide to Green Government and have the Auditor General simply review what the departments are doing based on the government's guide instead of on each and every department's individual principle. Certainly I think we'd be saving a lot of time and effort and we'd be meeting some of the criteria we have to deal with.

In terms of the practicality of the ministers reporting first to Parliament and then through the auditor, we have 25, as I count them here - and I did it quickly - schedule I departments. How is it that you, as a drafter, see these 25 departments reporting first to Parliament on their strategic plans and then responding to the auditor?

First, are we going to see, on any day of the week at any time of the year during the first two years, ministers standing up and reporting on the strategic plans of the 25 departments? Or is this going to be published in a book and be available at one time for everybody to have a look at?

Mr. Cappe: It will be up to each department and minister to decide when they table their plans in the House, so in a way they'll be coming out in dribs and drabs.

Again, for the Department of the Environment, we've set for ourselves the standard of doing it within a year, and I personally would like to be the first. I hope I can beat my colleagues in this. Frankly, given your comment about the need for sensitivity training, I'm not too worried.

The challenge for the Department of the Environment is to provide that assistance to those departments. We have already a number of initiatives under way to do that.

We have something we call the federal Environmental Accountability Partnership, where we work with a number of other departments to look at the application of environmental issues in those departments.

We have also the Federal Committee on Environmental Management Systems, where we assemble those individuals responsible for environmental stewardship in their departments together to share experience and provide different ways of doing business.

We have an interdepartmental committee on fleet management, where the managers of fleets get together to talk about the environmental implications of the way we manage fleets.

So there's a few of those infrastructure elements already existing, which we intend to use to help departments prepare their plans and take into account pollution prevention and all the important principles of what a good plan would contain.

Again, the strategies will be tabled in one particular year, and then the department will have to hold itself to account in its estimates and report to Parliament on how it's doing vis-à-vis the objectives and the action plan that it set. The commissioner will then assess that report on how well the department has met its objectives and report to Parliament on it.

I guess that is a circuitous route in a sense, but again the agent of Parliament has an important role to play in holding to account government. That's the system we think would be most effective.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We can certainly foresee an interesting year in 1997, not only in electoral terms but also in interdepartmental relations terms.

Time is moving on, so perhaps we should conclude now. We thank you for the insight you have provided us this morning.

We thank you also, Ms Gotzaman, for appearing before us. We hope to hear from you again.

.1005

We will now invite to the table, as soon as the logistics permit, the Auditor General and his colleagues.

.1005

PAUSE

.1007

The Chairman: Mr. Desautels, we welcome your appearance here today. I'm sure you will have an interesting introduction. Would you like first to introduce your colleagues and then bring us up to speed on your thinking on this important matter?

Mr. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied today by Mr. Wayne Cluskey and Mr. Richard Fadden.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the function of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development as proposed in the bill to amend the Auditor General Act. As many of you are aware, I appeared before your committee on March 22, 1994, to discuss the environmental work of my Office.

My Office has been commenting on environmental issues within the federal government's jurisdiction for many years. For example, in 1987, we reported that Canadian Pacific Railways had been polluting a river because of inadequate sewage handling facilities. In 1989, we reported that many registered pesticide products subject to federal regulations had not been fully evaluated for environmental risk. In 1994, we reported on the Environmental Partners Fund and on the Ice Services Branch of Environment Canada. In May of this year, we reported on managing the legacy of hazardous waste and federal radioactive waste management.

As I stated during my March 1994 appearance, there are a number of advantages to our Office continuing to audit environmental and sustainable development issues. The independence and credibility of the Office of the Auditor General are well established. There would be no need to create a new bureaucracy and it would be less costly to taxpayers. There would be no duplication of effort, and the principles of sustainable development would be reinforced by auditing environmental issues together with economic and social ones. I continue to fee that all of these many positive aspects would apply to the work of the Office with respect to the proposed functions of the Commissioner of the Environment.

[English]

I would like to comment briefly on the proposed changes to the act and then discuss their impact on our office.

.1010

One amendment proposes that the Auditor General appoint a senior officer designated as commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who will report directly to the Auditor General. This individual will be hired from outside our office and will be someone who has the appropriate experience, knowledge, and credibility in the environment field to carry out the functions of the commissioner in a manner befitting the importance of this position.

I'll begin the search for the commissioner once Bill C-83 is approved. I intend to carry out a national search in order to find a suitably qualified person. I will also be setting up a panel of advisers to assist me in this search for suitable candidates. I will also hold discussions with Mr. Caccia before announcing the appointment of the commissioner.

The commissioner's responsibilities will be fully integrated into the overall mandate and work of our office, particularly as it pertains to the audit of environmental issues. I believe this integration will be one of the strengths of the new position. The commissioner will specifically be involved in the review of departmental sustainable development strategies and action plans, the receiving, monitoring and reporting on the petitions function, and the preparation of the new green report discussed later.

In addition -

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting. The paragraph you have just completed is missing from the text you have circulated, just to let you know there is a discrepancy.

Mr. Desautels: I note that, Mr. Chairman.

In addition, the commissioner will represent the Auditor General on national and international committees related to environmental matters relevant to the work of the office, hold discussions with government officials, appear with or represent the Auditor General in front of committees of Parliament, and meet with environmental groups, community groups, etc., to discuss the environmental work of the office. This, along with the new commissioner's report that he or she will prepare on my behalf, should give the environmental work of the office a good profile indeed.

One of the amendments requires ministers to table in the House, within two years of these amendments coming into force, a sustainable development strategy and action plan for the implementation of this strategy. One of the major functions of the commissioner, his or her staff, and other auditors from the Office of the Auditor General, will be the audit of the sustainable development strategies and action plans. These audits will be carried out on a cyclical basis and the results will be reported in the new report described below.

[Translation]

The Auditor General will be formally designated as receiving petitions from the public concerning environmental matters. The Office will be required to forward these petitions to the appropriate Minister within 15 days for the Minister's response. In turn, the Minister must acknowledge receipt of the petition directly to the petitioner within 15 days of receiving the petition from the Auditor General, with a copy of the acknowledgment to the Auditor General. The legislation will require Ministers to respond to the petitioner on the substance of the petition within 120 days of receiving it from the Auditor General.

Another amendment to the Act proposes an additional report to Parliament. Included in this new report will be the results of those audits we have carried out in a particular period relating to sustainable development strategies and action plans. For example, our Office will review the government's achievement of progress in developing sustainable development strategies and action plans and in attaining the goals and objectives identified in the action plans. The Office will report whether these results were reported to Parliament and Canadians in a timely, accurate, relevant and understandable manner. This new report will also contain information on the number, type and status of petitions received. It could also summarize or otherwise refer to chapters and observations on environmental issues that were included in other reports to Parliament.

In my view, none of the proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act in any way restricts the Office from reporting on any sustainable development matter in any of our other reports to Parliament.

.1015

Therefore, these other reports could also include observations on sustainable development strategies, action plans and petitions.

In fact, one of the benefits of periodic reporting is that we can now report to Parliament in a much more timely manner than was possible with only one annual report.

[English]

When I last met the environment committee, I also touched on the expectations of stakeholders regarding what was then termed an environmental auditor general. I remain concerned about the extent of these expectations. I sense there could be a gap between what stakeholders, such as environmental groups, would hope the commissioner can do and reality, both in terms of mandate and available resources. It will be important in the months ahead to ensure that this expectation gap is minimized.

For my part, I will try to do this by clearly describing this new role and the impact of these proposed changes on my office at the first appropriate opportunity in one of my reports to Parliament. I would, however, like to briefly discuss three of the areas where this expectation gap might exist.

The first area is policy review. When I spoke to the environment committee in March 1994, I discussed the importance of the independence and objectivity of this office as underpinnings to the credibility it has established since its creation in 1878. I noted that responsibility for such matters as policy review in arbitrating environmental disputes should not be given to my office, as this could quickly and seriously jeopardize the AG's traditional independence, objectivity and credibility.

In Canada, it's generally accepted that legislative auditors do not observe on the merits of policy. They concentrate their comments on the proper implementation of policy. I might also mention that our work with other auditors general world-wide indicates that the majority of my colleagues outside Canada interpret their mandates in a similar manner. Likewise, the proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act make no provision for the office to comment on the merits of policy. Therefore, we will not comment on the merits of current environmental or non-environmental policies.

Similarly, there's also no basis in the proposed amendments or in the office's current mandate for the office to take on the role of ombudsperson. Notwithstanding this lack of legislative authority, such a role would not only be costly, but it could have a negative impact on the creditability of the Office of the Auditor General and commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This is because this role would require the commissioner to actively advance the principles of sustainable development, while auditors would generally limit themselves to pointing out instances of non-compliance with these principles.

Finally, the mandate of the Office of the Auditor General, including that of the proposed commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, is restricted to the responsibilities of the federal government. Neither myself nor the commissioner have or will have any authority to address matters that fall under provincial or municipal jurisdiction.

[Translation]

I think it is important to mention here that the mandate and functions of this Office, including those of the Commissioner, cannot substitute for strong government leadership and departmental management action and accountability. This of course applies equally to both environmental and non-environmental programs and activities. It remains the responsibility of departmental management to review their programs, to assess their success and continuing relevance and to determine whether there are cost-effective alternatives. The results of these revisions are essential ingredients to managing programs wisely and providing information for accountability reporting.

The Guide to Green Government issued in June of this year states that departments are required to report annually on progress toward sustainable development in Part III of their Main Estimates.

.1020

The document also notes that this regular reporting of activities and performance in the Main Estimates will make ongoing monitoring and self-assessment a necessity. As part of their responsibilities, the management of individual departments will therefore have to monitor and evaluate their own progress. This is a fundamental responsibility of management, whether in the public or private sector.

We have seen as a result of our work on program evaluation how difficult it is for government to implement good effectiveness measurement and reporting. In these days of downsizing and restructuring, I am concerned that the challenge presented will not be picked up. From our experience, we know that leadership, support and guidance need to be provided to departments so that they can respond in a positive manner. I believe there may be expectations held by some that we alone will take on the responsibility of setting the benchmarks or criteria against which the government's overall progress can be measured. If the Office were to carry out this task without the government taking an active role, it would be interjected into the day to day operations of the government, thus removing the traditional arms length relationship of a legislative auditor from these operations. It could also be perceived as a potential conflict of interest since we would be put in a position of auditing something we ourselves had developed. I believe the preferred approach is that the government should be responsible for developing its own benchmarks and criteria.

[English]

These proposed amendments and the government's expectations of what will be required from the Auditor General's office in environmental work will require the strengthening of our resources in auditing environmental issues. This could involve the hiring of additional resources with the appropriate technical qualifications and experience to ensure that our environmental work continues to be carried out in a professional manner.

I have requested the additional resources I believe are necessary to carry out the functions of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the enhanced audit work on environmental matters expected of my office. These requirements have been discussed with Treasury Board Secretariat officials, who have indicated that if the amendments to the Auditor General Act are passed by Parliament they will recommend that Treasury Board ministers increase our resources appropriately.

I would like to mention that despite the additional resources involved as a result of the amendments to the Auditor General Act, my office will have reduced its overall resources by approximately $7 million a year by 1997-98.

In conclusion, having the function of commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in my office as well as a specific mandate to audit sustainable development issues is quite a unique role for a legislative auditor. I know of no other legislative auditor anywhere else who has such a complete role, although many, like this office, do currently carry out audits of environmental issues. This certainly helps to keep Canada in the forefront of the legislative auditor community. We have already had a number of queries about this expanded role from legislative auditors in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the U.S.A., and South Africa. I look forward to what is yet another major step in the evolution of our office, from an organization conducting only financial audits to one that has a mandate to audit value for money, and one that now will have a specific mandate to be involved in a major area of public concern that impacts on all of us in a personal way, namely the environment.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I would be very pleased to answer any questions you might have.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desautels. As I did earlier with the Deputy Minister of the Environment, I will give each member an opportunity to ask a series of questions.

We will begin with Mr. Pomerleau.

.1025

Mr. Pomerleau: Thank you, Mr. Desautels, for your presentation.

I want to come back to the argument that our Chairman, Mr. Caccia, raised with Mr. Cappe. You explained the situation we find ourselves in clearly, that is that government departments will be providing the tools with which they want to be judged or assessed. They will be the ones supplying the programs and criteria against which their performance will be measured. Do you not see a conflict in this?

Mr. Desautels: I don't see any conflict. This principle also applies in other public administration sectors. The government has a responsibility overall to issue to all departments clear directives which should normally serve as criteria against which we can measure each department's performance.

It is more logical for these directives to come from the government itself, from a central government agency such as the Environment Department, rather than from the Commissioner. As I said a few moments ago, the same model can be found in other areas of financial management, where Treasury Board issues directives. The same goes for human resources management areas.

Therefore, the criteria should come from the government itself and serve as directives for all departments.

Mr. Pomerleau: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Forseth: On page 64 in the red book it states:

We now have a bill that is certainly somewhat different from what both the committee and the red book had envisioned. I would like you to address the basics of why this particular choice was made in its present form.

We have a bill that names a commissioner ``just for profile'', to use those words. I question that. You can address that.

We have a bill, of course, that has some expanding powers, some clauses that enhance the work. I'm wondering if that could have been done without naming a commissioner. Certainly you had authority to hire and expand the divisions that already were doing environmental audits.

Can you explain to us why we didn't get a separate office of the Auditor General, and comment on whether it was a turf war? Did you see competition on the horizon and then work to minimize it? Is this bill perhaps the basic compromise between what was envisioned and what you wanted?

Those are the issues I hear and the disappointments and the controversies. We might as well address them head on.

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for all of us to remember that this is essentially a government bill. This bill does not come out of our own organization. To the extent that there are differences in this bill from what was said in the red book, I myself cannot really explain those differences. However, I would offer this.

We did appear before this committee in March 1994. We commented on certain proposals and even offered to the committee a number of alternatives, with the advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives.

.1030

So we did explain to the committee what kind of work we had been doing already in the environmental field. We also put forward the idea that there were certain advantages in our organization expanding its work in that field. I simply put that forward as an alternative, among others, that the committee might be considering in the preparation of its report.

I think these arguments are well documented in our answers to the questions of the committee back then. You asked the question of whether this was a turf war of any kind. No, it's not, honestly. But we did point out that there could be economies, on the one hand, by having this function carried out in our office. You could also get more of a bang by having our organization take this on, because we already have a group of more than 500 people who could be put to the task here.

So these are among the advantages that we were able to lay out before the committee, but we were quite clear that there were other alternatives. It all depended on how far the government wanted to go with this particular proposal.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm pleased that you're here today. I look forward to the Department of the Environment and the other areas of government working with you on this.

Perhaps you can't explain the differences between the red book and this government legislation, because the member from the Reform Party has been manufacturing those differences.

The question I wanted to ask you has to do with a difference between the Auditor General Act and this one, in terms of coverage. The Auditor General Act, as far as I understand it, applies to all departments. However, this is limited to what has been called category I departments, in terms of requiring them to put forward sustainable development strategies.

I'm wondering if you could comment on this difference. I'm also wondering if you could comment on how we could be more inclusive of other government agencies, etc., that don't fall under category I.

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I think there could be some advantages to expanding, in a selected way, the scope of this legislation. This is a choice that has to be made. I think there are departments that don't fall into category I that might usefully be brought in.

On the other hand, there are many other very small entities to which this should not apply. Indeed, if it did apply across the board, it might create unnecessary bureaucracy and paperwork.

On a selective basis, it could be quite appropriate to expand the scope beyond strictly category I departments. Again, that's a policy choice. I would see no problem with doing that.

When it comes to crown corporations, I think that's a more complicated issue. Our own mandate in the crown corporation field does not flow out of the Auditor General Act, basically. It really flows out of the crown corporation legislation and the Financial Administration Act.

.1035

So it would be quite good to gain some experience with the proposed legislation with the category I departments, or a few other non-category-I departments could be added, and then, a few years down the road, it would be quite appropriate to see to what extent that kind of practice could be expanded to crown corporations.

Mr. Steckle: We're certainly living in a time when society is more environmentally conscious than perhaps we have ever seen in our history, and it's probably an appropriate time for us to take these measures. I'm wondering about some of the comments we heard from an earlier presenter this morning regarding how this initiative is driven, whether it's driven by the bureaucracy, by the people within government, or by the elected people, and to whom people are accountable.

The problem I have seen, being outside of government and now having been in government for a short time, is that we take initiatives and we propose certain kinds of measures to correct problems, but once we identify the problem, it seems to be difficult to find ways to correct it.

In your department, in the job you have, it is within your position to identify. How do we find ways to correct those measures? You've identified a number of areas. When you identify a problem, how do you effectively correct it?

Mr. Desautels: This is indeed a crucial issue. We're also concerned about how slowly or quickly the problems that we raise eventually get corrected. We keep track of that quite closely. We are quite persistent, and we come back to issues as long as need be before they're corrected or other events take over.

For the rest of our work, we have an approach. While we cannot order people to take corrective action because it is not within our power, we can, through persistence, bring those questions back to the attention of Parliament, and over time we see that the majority of our recommendations about the problems we have raised get implemented.

In this particular area there's one mechanism that might improve the average, so to speak. I'm thinking here of the strategies that have to be made public by each minister and that have to be audited by us on a regular basis. This brings a degree of visibility and openness to the challenges that each department may have to face in that field, and if we were to raise certain serious environmental issues, I hope they would be covered by the strategies of those departments. So it brings a degree of visibility to those issues that we don't have elsewhere. That could make our batting average, or rate of success, even greater.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have read the definition of «sustainable development». I would like to know whether you think it is a useful definition or not. Would you rather see a different one?

.1040

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, the definition contained in the bill is acceptable to us. We have not encountered any problem in particular as far as using the definition in the bill is concerned. Obviously, we were consulted when the bill was drafted. Therefore, we accepted the definition that was proposed. We also feel that it is accepted elsewhere, in other circles and in other countries. Even the ISO uses this particular definition.

With your permission, I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Cluskey, to elaborate a little further on this point.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Cluskey (Principal, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): As Mr. Desautels mentioned, we do a lot of work internationally, or we at least meet with international colleagues. We've also done work on an environmental management system, where we had extensive efforts or work with the International Standards Organization.

This is the definition that seems to be used throughout the world. Admittedly, it's somewhat of a high-level definition, but if you cut through it, it essentially means bringing the economic and environmental - and I guess they're now adding social - issues into all decision making and operations. So I think we can certainly live with this definition, because others are living with it and it's the standard being used.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Pomerleau.

Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Desautels, you stated the following in your presentation:

This will be in the next budget, I would imagine. I am new to the environment committee, but according to my colleague, you stated that the new position of Commissioner of the Environment would very likely cost approximately $4.5 million per year. How can you reconcile the creation of this position with the cuts that could be made to all related budgets?

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we were asked like everyone else to do our part to reduce government spending, and we have agreed to trim our overall budgets. Last June, 55 people in our Office took early retirement. We are participating fully in the government's expenditure reduction program.

Having said this, in order for this new position to be taken seriously, we feel that a minimum amount of resources must be allocated to this office. We have tried to ascertain the critical minimum level of resources required to do the work that has to be done and to maintain the credibility expected of this office.

Having made this determination, we had to cut our other expenditures. However, we do expect to receive some additional funds from Treasury Board. On balance, we are nevertheless anticipating a net reduction in our Office's overall expenditures.

.1045

The preliminary agreement that has been worked out should be ratified. I am satisfied with it as it will enable us to carry out properly the functions described in the bill.

[English]

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do apologize, but I have to leave very shortly because I have to appear as a witness before a subcommittee.

Just in response to what Mr. Pomerleau has brought up about the cost, what is often not taken into consideration is the savings that can be brought about through initiatives and undertakings that help move us towards sustainability. For example, the Greening the Hill program saves the Hill an awful lot of money. When you get into things like energy efficiency and waste management reduction and stuff like that, it ends up costing less. It costs us less to clean up and it costs us less in terms of our health costs. So these are win-win situations.

I'm wondering if, in your reporting, you think it would be a benefit to report on some of the cost savings as well when departments are taking some of these initiatives. Does that fall into something you would be capable of doing under your mandate?

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, the notion of identifying cost savings is absolutely a valid notion, and indeed we try to keep track of that in the rest of our work. I think that in future reporting of the work of the commissioner, it could be a useful dimension to that reporting. I suppose it's always difficult to attribute directly certain savings to specific actions, but despite those difficulties I think it's entirely possible for the new commissioner to comment on the savings of some of the measures that have been taken.

I sincerely believe that generally, as a basic principle, the work of the Auditor General generates a savings in government that is many times the cost of the operation. I think the same thing can apply to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Forseth, please.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

Again, and on some of the same themes, you've outlined that you will receive more resources to fulfil the mandate of this bill at a time when the Auditor General, in a larger, global sense, will be cut back. So I'm asking, specifically, how much additional resources you'll be looking for. Please also go on to describe whether or not the commissioner will report through you. Maybe you can describe the environmental unit, the number of employees, and their general reporting relationships. Will this commissioner be in charge of a unit or will he function somewhat isolated? I'd like you to describe your plan - the general shape of things to come in an operational sense, both on the resource side and on the relationship side, as a result of this bill.

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I will ask Mr. Cluskey to answer those questions.

Mr. Cluskey: With respect to the resources, the proposed amount is $3.5 million, of which approximately $1 million will be for the direct function of the commissioner - his or her office, the cost of putting out an additional report, getting additional experts in the office. The remaining amount, and this is ultimately spread over three years to a grand total of $3.5 million, will be used to do additional audit work for which we did not have the resources before. It's not for work we'd already planned.

For example, if we look at contracting purchasing in the government, we would add to that audit a segment that would determine whether the government is buying green products and whether we're buying from environmentally friendly manufacturers. Much of the work will go to a further depth. There will be additional assessments of environmental activities. The idea is that we can do more than we could before under the current resources. So that's essentially....

We will adjust our plans. We had a four- or five-year plan to get some idea of what resources we needed in terms of an amount. Now we have to adjust those a bit as experts become available, and so on. This also includes a certain amount of money for contractors, so temporarily we can get in expertise that we may not have in our office or that may not be available in our office.

.1050

That deals with the resource question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Forseth: That's the first half. The second half of the question is related to the commissioner. Will he have somewhat of just an independent office or is he now going to become an operational organizational head of a lot of the resources you're already doing? I'm looking at the relationship side as well.

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, the commissioner will be heading, as Mr. Cluskey implied, a small group of experts within the office. That's why he will have a budget in excess of $1 million to do that. The role of that group will be to help us fulfil the obligations of the office coming out of this legislation. It will also be to provide direction and technical support to the rest of the people in our office in implementing the plans we will have adopted.

So while the commissioner will have his own force, he will also have at his disposal the rest of the office. I believe he will be in a position to have his strategy adopted and implemented by the rest of our office.

The commissioner will be a very senior person in our organization and therefore will have the authority and influence to carry out that role, I believe, in a meaningful fashion. This is why, as I said in my opening comments, we will be seeking someone from outside with the recognized expertise, and if possible status, in that area, so he will give the role all the credibility and respect expected.

I'm not sure if that answers your question totally.

Mr. Forseth: And about how many employees -

The Chairman: I'd like to come back to that. Mr. Steckle, please.

Mr. Steckle: There are many laudable measures being taken today to create sustainable energy and development. We have just had an opening of one of those plants and further development to that in my own riding.

I am wondering as we anticipate not only now, but into at least the short-term future, financial constraints. I think you have alluded to something even in your own comments in terms of the downsizing and the restructuring of government and departments.

Are you indicating concern about the challenge that's being presented and whether we can fulfil the mandate? Can you elaborate on that and perhaps how you see this whole economic crunch that we're in today impacting on what we're attempting to do here? While the motive is right and the initiative, I am just wondering whether we have the financial resources to make it work, or can we make it work with less financial resources?

Mr. Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I don't honestly think that the basic strategies and other actions that have to be undertaken to meet the objectives of the new green strategy necessarily need to amount to a whole lot of money. In our work, for instance, in environmental management systems - and indeed we will be reporting on that later on this week in our upcoming report to Parliament - indications are that this is not necessarily very expensive to carry out.

.1055

So I believe the financial constraints the government is now facing should not be used as an excuse for not putting proper strategies and proper environmental management systems in place.

The point I raised in my opening remarks had to do with the evaluation of results, and we've pointed out that program evaluation of all major government programs leaves a lot to be desired. The reason often given for that is the lack of resources.

I'm not sure whether that aspect of it is clear, but this basically comes after the strategies and management systems. Hopefully, there will be enough energy left to carry out a program evaluation of these programs and others, and financial constraints could impact that. However, in terms of the basic strategies and the management systems, I don't think financial constraints should be used as a reason for not proceeding with them.

The Chairman: Mrs. Payne, do you have a question?

Mrs. Payne: Just one, Mr. Chairman, to follow up on what my colleague just mentioned.

It seems to me that in the past we were sometimes tripping over ourselves by not putting into place some of the criteria that might have avoided a fair amount of expense. I'm wondering if the management systems and other plans you're looking at putting into place right now might avoid some of that expense and waste and, in the long term, end up saving us money.

I'm thinking of such things as pulp and paper mills that were allowed to operate with systems that probably never should have been there in the first place, for instance. I'm not picking on pulp and paper mills, but just using them as probably a poor example.

In other words, should we be looking at things that will avoid cost in the future by having more efficient systems and plans put in place?

Mr. Cluskey: As part of our work, both environmental and non-environmental, we are always looking for areas where costs or economies can be achieved. We cannot audit anybody in the private sector, but we can look at those federal government organizations that have a regulatory role. In the course of our work, from time to time, if we were to notice that regulations, rules or whatever seemed to be causing inefficiencies resulting in wasted money, we would certainly report on that. But we have to be very careful because sometimes there is a policy aspect to this. But we would certainly comment on the implementation of policy.

Mr. Desautels: Let me just add that if departments have proper environmental management systems in place, and this is what we would be advocating and pushing for in this new role, it could lead to the avoidance of some of the problems that have occurred so far. Indeed, our work has identified significant costs of remediation in various government departments. When I say significant, they are indeed quite high. Proper environmental management systems could avoid some of those situations and reduce the cost of remediation down the road.

The Chairman: Before launching the third round of questions for you, Mr. Desautels, the part of your submission this morning that, to me at least, is the most important is the one that deals with your statement that the government should set benchmarks and criteria.

.1100

In this bill you have a very large, internationally accepted definition of sustainable development that does not give a very precise directive. It does give an overall concept; that's fine. You also have included a responsibility for each department to set its own sustainable development plans and measure with its own yardsticks the progress made towards the achievement of the goals set by each department in each plan.

This bill also has you coming in to determine whether each department has properly measured its own progress towards its own objective with a yardstick chosen by the department. Considering the number of departments involved in schedule I, you will be looking into the progress made by 25 different horses moving at 25 different speeds with 25 different jockeys with 25 different patterns of progress. Is that a fair assessment of what you will be overseeing?

Mr. Desautels: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will ask Mr. Fadden to summarize in our own way how we see this role, particularly how we address your concern about the setting of benchmarks and criteria, and how that might happen down the road.

Mr. Richard B. Fadden (Legal Adviser and Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, you raise a concern we discussed with officials of the government when the bill was being drafted.

As the Auditor General said earlier, we accept that the definition of sustainable development is probably one that we can live with, but it presents the government generally with the difficulty of implementing it and us with the difficulty of auditing it.

We suggested at the time that at a minimum some sort of template would be necessary. We argued that it would be useful if a regulatory power were included in this bill that would enable the Governor in Council to establish directives and guidelines to facilitate the preparation by departments of their plans and objectives.

I'm sure you know better than I, sir, that most modern statutes do include a regulatory power enabling the Governor in Council to implement provisions of the bill. We think it would make the work of the auditors much easier if there were government-wide standards against which we could audit.

We also accept the underlying premise of your statement that having 25 departments developing their own views of how things should be is taking a risk. I suspect that over time if it developed in that fashion, the Auditor General would end up critcizing the government directly for failing to coordinate and consolidate.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Pomerleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: First of all, we agree completely with the decision to create the position of Commissioner of the Environment. However, it appears increasingly that this position will be nothing but an empty shell.

You state that the Auditor General will not have the right to review policies and you explain why. It will be the same thing in the Commissioner's case. He will not be assuming the role of public watchdog and the budgets assigned to this office will be smaller budgets. Your own Office's budget has been cut. When I see the real powers that the Commissioner will have, I wonder what purpose he will serve.

Mr. Desautels: Unlike Mr. Pomerleau, I do not feel that this position is an empty shell. I am confident that the role we are being asked to play will be adequate and useful. Given the position's current profile, I believe we can do a great deal for the environment and sustainable development.

.1105

Of course, not everyone's expectations will be met. There may be some groups who would like the Commissioner or someone else to promote certain policies and even defend their interests, but I think that in the long run, this would get in the way of the Commissioner of the Environment carrying out his other duties. The Commissioner must remain somewhat neutral and define his role in terms of decisions made by Parliament.

Putting it in relatively simple terms, when Parliament passes environmental legislation, our job is to reassure Parliament that the legislation is being properly applied by all stakeholders.

To promote certain new laws or legislative amendments in an active manner would be perceived as interference. In order to perform the duties of this office effectively, the Commissioner of the Environment must be completely objective and not assume the parliamentary prerogative.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Forseth.

[English]

Mr. Forseth: I'd certainly like to express that we wish you all the best and hope for good results in the future in an enhanced role of what the bill outlines in a general sense.

Perhaps you could give the committee the organizational chart that describes your plans to do the environmental reviews - the people, the numbers, the mission statements - more at the nuts and bolts level of getting it done. Then, looking at the outfall at the other end, will the commissioner's reports have to be approved by you before they're released publicly?

Mr. Desautels: Already a number of public documents and statements have come out of our organization describing the organizational and budgetary questions, which I would be quite happy to share with the committee. We could consult with the clerk to make sure you don't already have these. We could quite easily share what we have at this point.

I should add, though, for Mr. Forseth's interest, that we haven't gone all the way in defining exactly how this would work. The reason for that is we want to do first things first.

If the legislation is adopted, we would like to first recruit a competent commissioner. I believe this commissioner should have a lot to say about how the function will be carried out in its nuts and bolts. I don't want to lock him in at this point, Mr. Forseth. I'd like to find him or her first. Once we've found the commissioner, then we'll discuss the nuts and bolts of implementation.

Mr. Forseth: The other part of the question was about the approval process and how these reports are going to come out. Are they going to be subject to you? Are you going to have the last say? Do you approve these? Is that in the plan?

.1110

Mr. Desautels: Well, yes. In my view, the report of the commissioner will follow the same quality control processes that we have established in our organization. I will of course want to see what is being said in those reports, but I don't anticipate any problem in that respect.

The commissioner is being specifically identified in the legislation and therefore should be afforded the ability to carry out his role in a fairly independent fashion. But I'm sure the commissioner, because he's working with a whole organization, will not want to fly off completely on his own.

As I said in my opening remarks, one of the strengths of this proposal is that you're bringing to bear on these issues all of our organizations that are covering the federal government universe. From the outset - from the planning stage up until reporting - this has to be carried out as a joint team effort. I presume that's the way the commissioner will want to work.

Mr. Forseth: I guess part of it is who evaluates the commissioner?

Mr. Desautels: The commissioner will be hired by the Auditor General and the performance of the commissioner will be there for most people to see. It is going to be a very public role, and the effectiveness of the commissioner therefore should be fairly evident.

I myself will have to pass judgment, hopefully getting some input from interested parties such as members of this committee.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Fadden, you said earlier that the regulatory power would be desirable or necessary, or something to that effect, in order to make the auditor's work easier. Could you elaborate on the kind of wording that a concept of this kind would require if accepted by the committee and by the government?

Mr. Fadden: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

My premise was based upon general agreement with your view that the definitions in the act are very general. What we were contemplating was something along the lines of ``The Governor in Council may enact regulations to give effect to either particular sections in the act or to the act in general''.

We meant more of a standard regulatory clause, which is contained in most modern statutes. This would enable the Governor in Council to, for example, specify both logistical kinds of details in terms of the sustainable development strategies - exactly when, how long, what's in and what's out - and also, if the Governor in Council wished, details about what is to be included in these sustainable development plans.

It seems to me the advantage in doing this is, as I'm sure you know better than we do, regulations have to be published in The Canada Gazette and they're afforded an opportunity to be commented on. This would afford parliamentarians and others an additional opportunity to input on what would eventually become the standard against which the Auditor General would audit.

The Chairman: Would these regulatory powers indicate also the principles that are to be envisaged in moving toward sustainable development as defined in the new act?

Mr. Fadden: I think that would be one possibility.

I'm unlikely to be corrected by my boss if I say that from the perspective of an auditor, the more precision you bring to bear the better. The more general a standard or a rule, the harder it is to audit against it.

.1115

So if you could convince your colleagues in government to add greater specificity, it would certainly make our task easier. On the other hand, if there's too much specificity, it adds bureaucracy. So there's clearly a balance there.

The Chairman: Is your boss in agreement about an amendment that would insert regulatory power?

Mr. Desautels: Yes, Mr. Chairman. After a quick consultation here, I would be in agreement with some kind of general clause that would enable the Governor in Council to issue regulations. Of course we're not talking here of doing that right now; let's say what would normally be in a regulation...putting that in this proposed new act. All we're suggesting here is including in the act a general power for the Governor in Council to issue regulations under this act.

The Chairman: One final question. The scope of this bill would cover schedule I departments, and if I understand correctly, also schedule I.1. Is that correct?

Mr. Fadden: No, Mr. Chairman. We were informed by the Department of Justice at the time this bill was being prepared that schedule I means schedule I and schedule I only. If the bill were to apply to I.1, the bill would have to specify so.

The Chairman: Are any departmental corporations covered by this bill?

Mr. Fadden: No, sir.

The Chairman: Finally, from your experience, to what extent do you think the criteria and principles outlined in the green guide of the government, signed by the Prime Minister and members of cabinet, will influence the plan of each department in the next two years?

Mr. Cluskey: Mr. Chairman, until we actually see the plans and the strategies, of course, it's very difficult to tell. But certainly the strategy as outlined in the green guide will go a long way to add a certain amount of conformity, notwithstanding the departments are very diverse in themselves. This sort of thing will give us something to audit against. As we start auditing the first of the strategies, we'll start to see whether there are omissions, whether there are weaknesses in the guide itself, or whether there are weaknesses in what the departments are doing in relation to the guide...or both. But certainly there is a start within this green guide that will help us to audit against when the first of the strategies are ready.

The Chairman: Finally, if I understand you correctly from what you said to us this morning, you will be auditing the progress made within each department on the basis of its own yardstick and goals.

Mr. Desautels: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As called for by this amendment to our act, we will be reporting on how the departments are implementing the strategies they've put forward. If there is any concern that certain departments may not be putting forward strategies that are serious enough, I believe the amendments to our act enable us also to comment on the seriousness and acceptability of the plans themselves.

.1120

Proposed subsection 23(2) says:

I believe the legislation as it's being proposed would enable us to go beyond simply observing how far a department has gone in implementing its own plan.

Mr. Cluskey: Mr. Chairman, I sense a concern about the departments developing their own yardsticks. One of the things we would certainly look at would be how they went about developing those yardsticks. If we had serious concerns that they seemed to be a little out of sync with what would seem to be appropriate, then we would comment on that, too, because that would certainly have an impact on all the rest of the work - their action plans, their own self-assessment of their progress.

As Mr. Desautels said earlier, we also would be looking to departments to self-assess, as any private sector organization, or government, would expect of the managers. So I think we would be looking at that self-assessment and expressing any concerns we had.

The Chairman: To mention a specific example, if the Department of Natural Resources in relation to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change were to embark on a policy that would not achieve the scheduled reduction by a certain year, and that would be the conclusion of the auditor, would you have the power to comment on that?

Mr. Cluskey: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would. We would look at how they've scheduled their targets - to the extent possible. There are a lot of scientific aspects in here that are still fairly new, so some of it is trial and error. We have to recognize that.

But if it became obvious that they had a schedule, or the progress to date, that just wasn't going to work, we would feel obliged to report that. We have done so in the past. A few years ago with respect to CEPA and the toxology and the regulations, we pointed out that the department's schedule was not appropriate, that they were not going to achieve it.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

On behalf of the committee I would like to thank you very much for your appearance this morning, for the input you have provided.

Mr. Desautels, I thank you in particular for your recent report on the legacy of hazardous wastes and federal radioactive waste management. Some of us found it extremely helpful and made good use of it. We are very obliged to you for that.

Mr. Desautels: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's been my pleasure.

The Chairman: As to the committee - and you can see how responsive the chair is to wishes about meetings of this committee - we will start at 10 a.m., with the Ontario commissioner. At11 a.m. we will have KPMG. That will be the extent of our meetings on that day.

This meeting is adjourned.

;