EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, September 17, 1996

.0832

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I hope that you had a pleasant summer and that this session of Parliament will be productive.

[English]

Our first item is the report by Tom Curran on biotechnology, but let me first say that from an environmental point of view this summer was highlighted by at least one outstanding event, which was the lifting of the Irving Whale, which we all followed with trepidation and excitement. It was quite a technical feat and demonstrated the capacity of the human mind when it applies itself to even the most difficult and apparently insurmountable challenge.

Other environmental issues are waiting for us in the months ahead. Legislation on endangered species soon will come to this committee, and we will also have the legislation on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In addition to that, we are now completing our work on biotechnology, which was commenced in May. We hope to complete that effort before the end of October, with a very exciting, I should say, and interesting round table scheduled for October 8, which is the result of very hard work in the summer by Tom Curran, who was able to secure the attendance of some outstanding Canadians at that round table. That is why last week you received a notice devoted to just that round table, asking that you put aside that date in your calendar of commitments.

.0835

The meeting will take place in the railway committee room, which is now no longer a bazaar but a dignified parliamentary place, as it should be. We will have the usual TV coverage, I believe. It will be in three sessions. It will go on from 8:30 a.m., I believe, until noon or 11 a.m., and then after Question Period.

It will be a hell of an intellectual marathon, and it will be quite an exercise. So I urge you and your colleagues who are interested in the issue of biotechnology to attend. I think it will be to everybody's advantage and we will all learn a lot from that particular day.

This morning, before our witness comes on stream, Tom Curran is ready to give us a report of the progress he has made on biotechnology and to give us an overview on what lies ahead in terms of schedules and issues. I hope you can benefit from his presentation.

Mr. Tom Curran (Committee Researcher): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This morning a briefing note was distributed. It's called ``Biotechnology Study''. The bulk of that briefing note summarizes the issues from the public hearings we completed in June of this year. I've taken ten issues out of the testimony given at the public hearings and summarized them, with page references. I don't think there's any need to go through the various issues at this time. I will leave that to the members. The clerk has both English and French copies to distribute.

To a large degree the three round tables of the biotechnology forum scheduled for October 8 will be based on the issues from the public hearings, which are summarized in this briefing note. As the chairman mentioned, there are three round tables.

I can go through the witnesses, Mr. Chair, if it is appropriate to go through the names of the participants we've invited.

The Chairman: Are they already listed?

Mr. Curran: They're already listed. If you'll turn to page 14 in the English briefing note and page 15 in the French briefing note, you'll see the format for the round tables and the list of witnesses or participants we have secured to date. Each of those panels will probably change slightly. When you're involved with so many people, coming from so many places, some people drop out and some other people agree to participate, so there may be some minor changes between now and October 8.

The format of the round tables will be very similar to that which we went through in 1995, when we did the CEPA review. At that time we held round tables in Toronto, Vancouver, and Halifax. Then we had a fourth round table, in Ottawa, on the ecosystem approach. There's always a slight risk involved in a situation like that, where you seat eight to ten invited participants around the table with the committee and try to stimulate a debate back and forth between the committee members and the invited participants and among the participants themselves. A lot of effort went into this to make sure the entire political spectrum or scientific spectrum, if you will, is covered by the invited participants.

The first round table is a sort of general one. It's entitled ``Biotechnology: Product, Process and Risk''. I can run down the list of participants.

The Chairman: There's no need.

Mr. Curran: Fine.

Just to recapitulate, these are academics, people who are working at institutes, and they do represent the full spectrum of opinion, I feel, on the biotechnology issues.

The second round table is ``Regulatory Options and Risk Communication''. This one will be of particular interest to members because it will focus on Dr. Leiss's proposal to the committee that there should be a gene law and/or a transgenic agency to regulate biotechnology, as opposed to the regulatory framework that is currently in place. We have a quite good list of people who can talk to that, including, to date, two assistant deputy ministers, one from Agriculture and one from Health. Environment is not yet certain if it will participate.

.0840

The third round table I think will be a particularly good one. It's on ethical considerations, ``ethical'' being very broadly defined to include socio-economic issues, cultural issues, and perhaps religious issues if participants and members wish to bring that into it. Again we have some very excellent people, including Dr. Margaret Sommerville, who is very well known in the field of ethics.

If there are any questions on the round tables, I could entertain them.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I received a paper this summer that had to do with one of the church groups and agriculture. They're an agricultural group but they're in the faith community. I'm just wondering if they might be considered under this. I could get you....

Mr. Curran: If members feel that any other participants should be invited to the round table, please communicate with me as Ms Kraft Sloan has suggested. Please give their names.

The Chairman: Have you a recollection of who the authors were?

The Clerk of the Committee: I think they were from Saskatchewan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Were they from Saskatchewan?

It's just that they're part of the agricultural community but they're also a faith group. They had some interesting observations.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Chairman, could you specify the role that parliamentarians will be called upon to play at these round tables? Will they be observers or active participants?

The Chairman: They will be active participants.

Mr. Asselin: I see.

The Chairman: That's very important.

[English]

Mr. Curran: Mr. Chair, do you wish to deal with that?

The Chairman: You can do it.

Mr. Curran: The MPs will participate in an open debate with the invited participants and with each other if they so wish. It's a very open concept.

I've neglected to mention that before the round tables a briefing note outlining the issues for each of them will be sent to the members and to the participants. The chair will introduce that and then will moderate the round table on the basis of the briefing note and then basically will throw the floor open to discussion. So there will be a free exchange of opinions between MPs and the participants back and forth - moderated by the chair, of course, to make sure that the issues will be more or less adhered to.

The Chairman: Mr. Curran has gone to great lengths in putting on paper a summary of what we heard in May and June, particularly on pages 2 to 13. So that is the Bible, in a condensed form, for those of you who want to refresh your memory or to get an insight into what has been done. It's extremely helpful and it could really be our guide into that debate on October 8.

Of course, if you wish to go into greater depth and elaboration, then ask the people in your office to provide you with the proceedings, with the blues of the various hearings, which I understand are on the Internet. So if you wish to know more detailed information, you can read exactly what was said on that day.

What, then, is the schedule after October 8? We will have time then to absorb the outcome of that discussion. We will have a meeting on the day after, I believe, to review what we will have heard, and then we will adjourn for the week off of Parliament, which is the week of the 11th. Then when we come back we'll certainly look at a first draft, which Tom will have ready for us. We'll work on that and speedily come to a conclusion in terms of a report and recommendations.

Mr. Curran: On the last page of the briefing note handed out this morning is an outline of the proposed report, which was discussed earlier this summer between the staff and with the chair. At present it consists of a proposal for six chapters. I don't need to read through them. They're on the last page of the briefing note. If members have any comments on that, then I invite them to contact me directly and make suggestions for any changes they want.

.0845

The Chairman: This is by no means final or engraved in stone. It was an attempt in early August by Tom Curran, the clerk, and me to provide a system, a methodology, for the report. It can certainly be modified. It is just a skeleton and of course it has to be filled in with data and policy material.

Mr. Curran: Given that the committee has a very busy schedule leading up to Christmas and that we want to get the biotechnology report finished as quickly as possible, at the same meeting in August the staff and the chair discussed the probability that we will need to hire a consultant to assist in the drafting of the report, particularly since there's a need for - shall I put it in this way - two sets of ears to listen very closely to the discussions at the round table, which will form a substantial part of the report. In a forum such as that, impressions are almost as important as the words themselves, and we have given consideration to hiring a consultant for a brief period to assist in the drafting of the report.

The Chairman: Will you elaborate on that? You can do it now.

The clerk is suggesting that we go into the details of this matter in a week.

The Clerk: It gives us more time to sort out witnesses.

The Chairman: So in a week or so we will be in a position to determine who might be available and under what conditions, for a period of, I believe, some six to eight weeks.

Mr. Curran: It wouldn't be quite that long.

The Clerk: Ten days.

Mr. Curran: It would actually be ten working days.

The Chairman: It would be ten working days, with a precise amount that the committee will be asked to examine and possibly approve. So that will be on the agenda possibly next week or in two weeks.

Mr. Curran: I could add to that that while we will be drafting the report the committee will be carrying on with its normal range of activities. Hiring a consultant will free Kristen Douglas to work specifically with the committee on its other business at that time, while we will disappear and produce a report on biotechnology.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): This is an excellent piece of work.

The Chairman: Mr. Curran, you can bow.

It's all his work.

The clerk is recommending that we entertain a motion to the effect that Mr. Curran's report on the status of the work that has been done so far and that is projected be approved in principle. Could we have a motion to that effect?

Mr. Adams: I so move.

Motion agreed to

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Mr. Chairman, concerning the consultant we propose to hire, I heard two comments and they were somewhat opposed. I heard a comment from you, Mr. Curran, that basically you want a consultant to help with the writing of the report, as opposed to what you were saying, Mr. Chairman, about his being there and sometimes picking up the unspoken messages - instead of just being brought in at the tail end to help write, being an ongoing observer and being more a part of the process to pick up what the chairman was talking about, the subtle and interplaying messages and the impressions, as well as being involved at the end.

Mr. Curran: It would be both, in fact, because the consultant would be present at the table or sitting near the table during the round table for the entire day. But while I'm preparing the material for the round table and getting things ready, that consultant could be drafting at least the introductory chapters of the report, with my participation, of course, doing the bulk of the writing at that time.

.0850

Chapters 1, 2, and 3 would be based on existing information. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 would be put together in a sense after the round tables are concluded. The consultant would be involved in the round tables, at least as a person listening to it, not a witness.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? If not, we will now proceed with our main item for today. We invite the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development,Mr. Brian Emmett, to come to the table.

Welcome. Please introduce your officials and bring them to the table, if you like.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today from my office is Wayne Cluskey, who will be available to answer questions if necessary.

The Chairman: Would you like to make a presentation? Do you have something you would like to put on record? You know the names of the members of the committee. I'm sure they are very happy to have this opportunity to meet you. We're all ears.

Mr. Emmett: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your welcome and your invitation to make some remarks. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss my approach to my new duties as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Mr. Cluskey is the principal in audit operations. Wayne has been involved in a great deal of the pioneering work of the Office of the Auditor General in environmental auditing.

[Translation]

In these brief opening remarks, I would like to share with the committee some of my initial thoughts on my approach to my new duties. I have provided the clerk of the committee with biographical information and a job description for your use. However, I would like to begin by talking to you about sustainable development.

Amendments to the Auditor General Act state that "the purpose of the commissioner is to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on progress toward sustainable development". The act describes sustainable development as a "continuously evolving concept" which requires the integration of economic with environmental and social considerations, such as equity and the well-being of future generations.

[English]

In my experience sustainable development is a creative and constructive framework for approaching policy issues, one that changes debate about environmental, social, and economic objectives from one about limits to growth to one about the growth of limits. Sustainable development carries with it an optimism about solutions to difficult problems. But it also requires the recognition that policies that are bad for the environment are unlikely to prove good for the economy in the long run, or to achieve lasting social progress.

Sustainable development has become widely accepted as a policy goal in the Government of Canada on a conceptual level and is enshrined in several pieces of federal legislation, including the amendments to the Auditor General Act that govern my job. However, if sustainable development is to become more than a useful framework for thinking about policy, we must do more than conceptualize. We must make concrete changes in the way we behave at every level of society, including government.

.0855

It is the performance of the federal government that is my special concern in my new position. I am troubled by the growing perception that government has lagged behind the views and expectations of individual Canadians and of best practices in the private sector. The perceptions are backed up by evidence compiled by the Auditor General of Canada and can be seen in the chapter ``Environmental Management Systems: A Principle-Based Approach'', which was presented by the Auditor General to the House of Commons in October 1995.

[Translation]

This can be partly explained by the complexity of modern government. With the range and the variety of stakeholders involved, integrating environmental issues in the activities of government is an inherently difficult job. How well government departments achieve the objectives they set for themselves in these areas is the subject of a major part of my job.

The federal government also has major operational responsibilities. It runs the largest corporate entity in the Canadian economy and the operational decisions of government have a profound effect on our environment. Monitoring the performance of the federal government here is also an important part of my job.

At a conceptual level, sustainable development has been integrated into government policy and legislation. Canadians are changing their own behaviour but the government is perceived as lagging behind, creating a gap between intention and performance, between the talk and the walk.

[English]

As commissioner, I'm just beginning my job, but I am very much aware of these perceptions and see them as an urgent priority of the work that lies ahead. My sense of urgency reflects the following reasoning.

The perceived gap between performance and rhetoric undermines the moral authority and practical credibility of the government to act on environmental issues. If it is to remain an effective force for change, government itself must change its behaviour with respect to the environment and sustainable development, with an emphasis on concrete action. This change must occur at both the policy and the operational levels.

This makes the sustainable development strategies and action plans required of departments the cornerstone of the changes to the Auditor General Act. They are critical to both the work of the commissioner and the credibility of the government. Each department will be responsible for its own sustainable development strategy and action plan, reflecting its own priorities and its own policy choices. However, in my view a reasonable sustainable development strategy and action plan should contain, at a minimum, three components: first, a policy component, reflecting how the integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns has been dealt with in making policy choices; second, an operational component, reflecting how the department will manage its own operations to account for impacts on the environment in the context of sustainable development; and third, from my own experience I believe it's quite necessary to have a consultation component, indicating to what extent the preparation of the plan has been open and transparent.

The ultimate test of the value of sustainable development strategies and action plans or of the value of the commissioner as an office is pragmatic, in my view. It's their usefulness in bringing about better decisions that impact on the environment and on people's lives. In my view departments must set out their intentions clearly, must specify how they intend to translate intention into action, must specify how they intend to measure and report on their actions. They must do so in an open and transparent manner. The emphasis must be on results that have meaning for Canadians.

[Translation]

My job, as described in the amendments to the Auditor General Act, is to report to Parliament on the sustainable development strategies and action plans prepared by departments and on any other matters that I, on behalf of the Auditor General, regard as sufficiently important to bring to the attention of Parliament.

.0900

I do not have a mandate to comment on policy choices, but to assist parliamentarians in their oversight role. In doing this, I plan to place particular emphasis on the success departments are able to show in translating concept into action in a meaningful and measurable way. I will of course also report fully on any deficiencies and shortcomings revealed by our work.

With respect to my short-term work program, I plan to create two teams. One will carry out value-for-money work at the Office of the Auditor General with respect to environmental programs, issues and the implementation policies. About 50% of this work will still be carried out throughout the Office of the Auditor General. A second team will have a mandate to undertake special examinations of environmental problems. The examinations will be chosen so that their results are likely to be of value to Parliament.

I also intend for this team to be responsible for drafting the sustainable development strategy and action plan for the Office of the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I would hope that this will form a part of the first green report to Parliament.

[English]

In addition, I plan to create an independent advisory committee, broadly representative of Canadians interested in sustainable development issues. I hope this will ensure the commissioner's work program will be sensitive to the needs and concerns of Canadians and will be a mechanism that helps us maintain openness and transparency in our own work.

I'd like to mention two other issues very briefly, Mr. Chairman: relations with the provinces and our international work.

With provincial legislative auditors we maintain very close contacts and regularly exchange information, and we seek ways to work together. On occasion we've been involved in joint audits or concurrent work as it relates to the federal component of joint programs. In this context we have shared with our provincial colleagues our work on the environment. I might add that our office has also maintained a very good relationship with Ontario's Commissioner for the Environment.

About the international area, there has been a great deal of interest in Canada's work in developing environmental auditing and in creating the post of commissioner. We maintain close contacts with national audit offices all over the world and are active in the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions. In fact, Wayne Cluskey has been a team member of the working group on environmental auditing. This is work of which I'm personally very supportive. I hope we can share lessons with others and learn from others. It's work I hope to continue.

Finally, I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you and I look forward to presenting the first green report to Parliament in February 1997. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Emmett.

We'll start right away, with Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: You talked earlier about creating two teams. Could you tell us a little more about their composition. Who will be on the team from the Auditor General's office?

Mr. Emmett: Thank you for your question. In the course of my presentation, I mentioned that a committee of independent advisors would be created. I intend to work with Professor Glen Toner of Carleton University on compiling a list of people who could help me draw up a work program and a mandate for the committee. I believe this was the only committee I alluded to in my presentation.

.0905

Mr. Asselin: How many people work under you and what kind of budget do you have?

Mr. Emmett: I will be responsible for about 30 people. Twenty will be from the Auditor General's Office, while I will be hiring about 10 others.

Mr. Asselin: What kind of budget will your office have?

Mr. Emmett: A budget of $3.5 million.

Mr. Asselin: You talked about relations between the provinces. Should the Auditor General warn the federal government not to infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction and caution it against overlap and duplication?

Mr. Emmett: The role of the commissioner will be to focus first and foremost on federal programs. However, if we uncover duplication and inefficiencies elsewhere, we will report on them.

[English]

Mr. Forseth: On page 4 in the English version of your introductory comments, in paragraph 16, there is an interesting line that says that a second team will have a mandate to undertake special examinations of environmental problems and the examinations will be chosen so that the results are likely to be of value to Parliament. Perhaps you could expand on that aspect, and you might hint to us some of the special areas you may be looking at.

Mr. Emmett: Thank you for your question. I think it's an excellent one.

My overall intention as commissioner is to try to make the oversight role of Parliament as effective as possible with respect to the public service. I know there are questions that are of great concern to Parliament, to environmental groups, and to the private sector that are outstanding and require the sort of independent, credible look that an organization like the Auditor General can bring to them. However, they are not necessarily questions that are amenable to something like a value-for-money audit, with its series of very well defined steps. Therefore I'd like to have a team that's capable of taking a somewhat less structured approach to looking at issues that are of concern to Canadians with respect to the environment and with respect to environmental performance.

Some of the items I have on my list to think about, but have not decided upon at this point in time - I'd like to speak with others and with the independent advisory body - are things such as the tax system. Does it bias choices in favour of things that perhaps are unfriendly to the environment? Another key area, which is not very glamorous but I think is fundamental, is the development of performance indicators. Without these, we never really seem to know where we are. It's a very difficult area in government. A third area that is on my mind is behavioural issues from an institutional perspective. Why do the private and public sectors behave in somewhat different ways with respect to the environment?

.0910

Those are things that I think are worth in-depth study and authoritative report. The question is, which ones are priorities and which ones can we undertake within the resources we have?

Those are the sorts of things I have in mind.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Emmett, we're delighted to see you here.

May I assume that most of the other people in the room are among the 20 or the 10 you mentioned?

Mr. Wayne Cluskey (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General): Two.

Mr. Adams: I just wondered where everybody came from.

We are very pleased. You know that there was a considerable amount of debate in this committee about the nature of your position and the powers. I noticed that in your presentation you addressed the policy formation parts of that debate.

I wonder if, up to this time anyway, you can comment on the advantages and disadvantages of your being in the Auditor General's office, because that was a matter of dispute.

Mr. Emmett: Thank you for an excellent question. It is one that requires some thought and is one that I've pondered at some length.

There are a number of significant advantages in being in the Auditor General's office. One benefits from the independence and credibility that have been established by the Auditor General, from the ability to speak in an authoritative way that is viewed broadly as being unbiased.

Secondly, and I think less tangibly, I've been extremely impressed by the very warm welcome that the Auditor General himself and the entire staff of the Auditor General's office have given me. Sometimes organizations react to the formation of new entities in odd ways. In this one there has been nothing but enthusiasm and a very creative and constructive attitude towards the work.

I think I can benefit tremendously from the work the Auditor General has done on the improvement of management systems and accountability and these sorts of things.

With respect to the restrictions that being part of the Auditor General brings with it, the necessity to be at arm's length from the policy formation process, that doesn't trouble me particularly, because, as I said in my opening remarks and as I believe deeply, I think the biggest problem on the environmental side at the moment is the gap between policy and execution. What we need are better systems to execute policies that are formed by Parliament and by ministers. I think I have a position that has a lot of benefits and from my point of view does not have a down side in terms of not being able to comment on the policies.

Mr. Adams: I think the way the Auditor General's office works - and I realize this is a simplification - is that it swoops down in different areas like this. They've got tremendous expertise. There's a value-for-money approach. I've already seen reports by them that deal with environmental matters where the government has not measured up to its environmental obligation. So that's the way I see them working.

In this case the action plans of the different departments are a very important part of your work. It seems to me that is a bit different from what has happened before. You say in here that you're going to report next spring. I can well imagine that you'll have to get set up. You won't have been able to have swooped down on anybody by that time. What do you expect to be reporting about these action plans? While you're getting ready, are the departments anticipating the appearance of you and your team to ask them what progress they've made and so on?

Mr. Emmett: The idea of swooping is probably current in the public service community, but I think it's an attitude that is rapidly being overtaken by events with respect to the work of the Auditor General, and certainly with respect to my attitude to my own job.

I can speak best with respect to my attitude towards my own job, which is that if people ask me for help in terms of what I want their action plan to contain, what I think a sustainable development strategy should look like, and so on, I intend to respond that I am happy to work with them as long as I can maintain my ability to comment on their work in an unbiased and authoritative way. I want to move up the policy chain a little and help people develop their plans.

.0915

Secondly, about the content of a report prepared for February, I think it's a very well taken question, what could be in that report, given that at that point there are unlikely to be many, or any, sustainable development strategies and action plans. I would hope in that first report I would lay out my own sustainable development strategy and action plan, how I view my activities in the context of sustainable development, and basically express the philosophy and attitude and approach I'll be taking to departments and signal to them what my expectations are.

Mr. Adams: We know the limitations. We have to get ready and so on. We can imagine what you have to do between now and.... If you're not going to swoop, do you get any sense that the ministers are anticipating when you're up and ready? Are they working on those plans now?

Mr. Emmett: They are very much working on those plans now. I've had the opportunity to discuss with two departments drafts they have and they'd like to get some preliminary reaction on. My feeling in general is that most departments - I haven't been able to canvass them all - are reacting with enthusiasm and going forward.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

We'll have Mr. Reed and Mrs. Kraft Sloan and then the chair to conclude the first round, unless there are other members who want to conclude the first round before we start the second. But let me welcome to this room Mr. Lincoln, the former parliamentary secretary and now the chair of the Canadian heritage committee.

We're glad you were able to make it, and you should feel free to indicate your intention to ask questions.

Mr. Reed, please.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Mr. Emmett, something jumped out at me here when I was listening to your presentation, and that's the emphasis on concrete action. I thought it was very positive. Perhaps you've covered the ground with your recommendation about the three components in your structure.

It seems to me one of the areas where government can take concrete action is in the area of regulation or deregulation. I've always pondered this question. Where sustainable activity, sustainable endeavour, is identified, whether totally sustainable or partially sustainable, it seems to me it would serve us well if it were accompanied by a removal of unnecessary regulation, so sustainable development could move forward without unnecessary inhibition.

I can tell you at present the regulatory process is not set up to encourage sustainable development at all. It's set up to oppose and impede all development, on the assumption that it's all non-sustainable, which is not true. There are a great number of endeavours that business and industry can take on, and do take on, and that may on balance be considered totally sustainable. Those areas are identified especially in one area of personal interest to me by the United Nations, in some work that has been done by expert minds around the world.

I just wonder where that fits into your three components. Maybe it's in the operational component, but I wonder if there might be a fourth one, regulatory support recommendations for possible support for sustainable development and the removal of those regulations.

Mr. Emmett: Again you ask a penetrating and fundamental question.

.0920

With respect to regulations, it's impossible to generalize. We are, as part of our work program in the Office of the Auditor General and the value-for-money audit area, undertaking detailed examinations of particular environmental regulations, and we will report on the extent to which they do or do not work well. So, in some sense, I don't want to be premature in making a response to that.

I would refer, however, to a paper that I think is particularly useful as departments go ahead and prepare their sustainable development plans, and that is A Guide to Green Government. If one has a look at the Guide to Green Government, it really places an emphasis on having a mix of tools. Those tools can be regulation. They can be perhaps economic instruments. They can be perhaps voluntary action. But the idea really is that departments should look at the appropriate mix of tools given the nature of the environmental problems they face. Those are choices for them to make.

Those choices having been made, I think we have a role in commenting on to what extent they can help to bridge the gap between talking and doing.

So I think the specific answer to your question has to await specific reports on specific regulations.

The Chairman: May I draw your attention to yesterday's article by the Minister of the Environment that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, in which he puts forward four realities in regulations, one of which is that environmental regulations protect the health of Canadians. It's a well thought out piece of abstract thought on the role of regulations. You might want to have a look at it and see to what degree you can endorse it.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Emmett, you stated in your presentation that it seems as if government has accepted sustainable development at the conceptual level and we should be more concerned about how to put it into practice. I'm wondering if you have some ideas about how we can put it into practice.

Mr. Emmett: Actually, I do have some ideas about how it can be put into practice. I think that really cuts to the heart of the thrust of the presentation.

First, I don't want to play down the importance of conceptualization. I think the way you frame a problem, the way you approach it, the way it is positioned in either a constructive way or a kind of negative way, is extremely important, because to me sustainable development marks a real advance.

Having made that advance, we have to move into the territory of getting beyond saving the planet and getting down to taking out the garbage.

My first comment would be that I think the sustainable development strategies and action plans that are called for in the legislation are key to this. As departments get into developing these things, I think they're going to find that this is an extremely difficult process. The gap between rhetoric and action exists for good reasons, because a lot of things are difficult to measure. Results are hard to define, accountabilities are hard to put in place, and so on. We're going to have to do a lot of very unglamorous, nitty-gritty work in defining specific results for specific actions and in coming to grips with rather technical issues such as the development of adequate performance measures and the putting in place of adequate accountability regimes.

This work is going to take a long time. This is a five-, ten-, or twenty-year project. We have a problem that's been growing for many years and it's not going to be solved overnight.

It really is a question of work primarily at the micro level - managing better, developing results, pushing forward bit by bit our understanding of how we can do things on the ground at the departmental level with respect to the tools that we use to achieve change - that will determine the success or failure.

.0925

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'd have to agree with you. Sustainability is not only an end goal that you want to achieve but also a process, and it's probably never-ending.

In your mind, what would be the key elements to ensure that the sustainable development strategies and action plans are developed in appropriate and meaningful ways; in other words, so we can dispel the perception that government is talking but not walking or so we can ensure that government is both walking and talking?

Mr. Emmett: Again that goes to the heart of the matter. My own view is that in some of the work that I've done in the government I've benefited enormously from talking to individual Canadians about what their expectations are. I think that the openness and transparency with which these....

That's why I include in my three components something that's really not a component but a process, and that process is one of consultation and getting out and learning what Canadians want out of this. I think that is a vital key element.

The other element is working with people who have something to say on the technical side about what management systems have perhaps worked in other areas. There are also a lot of developments in terms of green accounting and the management of environmental liabilities that are occurring in the private sector, from which we can learn.

So I would say that there are two elements: consultation and the offer my office is making to work with departments to try to bridge this gap.

I believe Wayne would like to add something.

Mr. Cluskey: I think one of the other advantages - and Mr. Emmett talked a little bit about this earlier - is the fact that the very act requires these strategies - and they are plans - to be tabled in the House, which will result in them being scrutinized very carefully. The other aspect is that it helps things along. When push comes to shove, we will be auditing them at some point in time. So there are a number of incentives, coupled with the fact that we are working....

I'm part of the intergovernmental sustainable development strategy committee, which is a group of departmental representatives, so I have an opportunity to make comments during their discussions and so on.

So all these factors will certainly assist departments.

My own sense, when I hear these people speak at these meetings, is that there is a very strong desire to do a good plan and a good strategy.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Also, there's been a history within the Auditor General's office, so this isn't something brand-new. You'll be providing more focus, but certainly a capacity and a competency already exist there.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, the chair, and then a good second round.

Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): Mr. Chairman, congratulations. I hope you will really achieve what you want to do, because I think a lot of us - I count myself as one of them - are getting a bit cynical about sustainable development, which have become nice buzz-words. I agree that soon we'll have a good plan, a good strategy. We have the Guide to Green Government. We have chapter 4 of the red book. We have all kinds of wonderful policy statements and guidelines, but when you look at the action it's very different.

I'll just take an example, climate change, where the rhetoric and the action are very far apart. We sign conventions internationally. We put out a wonderful message. But when it comes to fiscal reform in regard to renewable energy we move very slowly. When it comes to actually seeing our role as government as between a client of the fossil fuel industry and a mover towards renewable energy, it seems to me that the client role always comes first.

.0930

When I see, for instance, what a battle it was to more or less save the Freshwater Institute, it seems to me that there would be no argument in our minds as to its value, but there was. I suppose that even now it will be wobbly and very shaky.

In the absence of your having a mandate for influencing policy at the roots, I wonder how you can make that difference between the rhetoric, between the wonderful words and the plans and the statements, and the actual results. I am wondering if you see your role as someone who, because you are a sustainable development commissioner, would sometimes interfere in debates and arguments.

The Freshwater Institute might be as good an example as any, where suddenly a part of what is real sustainable development is just fading out of sight - or the fact that the Department of the Environment has now become the smallest of all government departments.

Do you see your role as being that of putting your word in and being a sort of advocate coming from a pulpit that is not biased, that is not partisan or political, which would then have a lot of moral suasion to government? I was wondering how you see your role there, in the absence of your having input into the policy-making itself.

Mr. Emmett: Thank you for a very penetrating question.

I will reply in three levels.

You mentioned the absence of a mandate to influence policy at its roots. I agree that I personally, as commissioner, do not have a mandate to influence policy at its roots. I think the act does. The amendments to the Auditor General Act potentially influence policy at its roots...because it requires something new in the policy process. It requires the creation of sustainable development strategies and action plans, which force the department to be absolutely explicit about the policy choices they are making with respect to the environment and economic and social objectives. That's a new element and I think it does influence the formation of policy at its roots, along with knowing, as Mr. Cluskey said, that these choices are going to be examined in the most public of fora.

Second, I think the commissioner can have.... I'm perhaps venturing onto dangerous ground here, because I don't want to claim to have an explicit influence on policy at its roots, but I think we can contribute to an atmosphere of heightened expectations about the quality of decisions that are taken in Ottawa about trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental objectives, without actually making specific comments in the process.

Regarding your specific question - would I become involved in the discussion of whether the government should spend its money in one way or another - I believe the specific answer to that must be no, because at that point I would no longer be independent. I would be involved in the political process of the participant, and I don't believe that's appropriate for the role as defined in the act and for someone in my position.

Mr. Lincoln: Isn't this the weakness of the whole thing, that somehow if you don't see your role as being one of an overseer and at the same time of an advocate who can put in your voice when a program is threatened or when a direction goes counter to the whole thrust of sustainable development...? I'm not saying that the act permits it today, but in an ideal world shouldn't that be part of your role?

.0935

We're trying to influence decisions for the future. I don't see why this act is static. We should look for the best way for you to be influential.

Mr. Emmett: I think we're having an exchange here that goes to the heart of some of the trade-offs that were required in determining a place for the commissioner.

First, I look at the mission statement of the Auditor General himself. The first words in that mission statement say that the Auditor General wants to make a difference. I think the Auditor General wants to make a difference in terms of the quality and the functioning of the public service and the way in which it takes decisions.

I believe that the best way for the Auditor General, and by implication the commissioner, to have that influence is to maintain a studiously neutral stance with respect to political issues. Otherwise, I think one becomes regarded as a party to a discussion, someone who has a bias in a discussion, someone whose reports can be discounted to a certain extent by one side or another.

Really what we can contribute is independent, unbiased analysis of what steps are needed to close what I think is a very corrosive gap between talking and walking. I believe in my own heart that maintaining that independence is a necessary condition in order to fulfil that role.

The Chairman: Mr. Emmett, would it be fair to say that Bill C-83 and A Guide to Green Government are your main instruments for guidance in terms of policy and political judgment?

Mr. Emmett: I think that's almost fair to say. Bill C-83 is certainly fundamental; it's the law.

The Chairman: You are one of the authors of the Green Plan, A Guide to Green Government?

Mr. Emmett: I think the Guide to Green Government is very important.

The Chairman: Are you proud of it?

Mr. Emmett: The Guide to Green Government?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Emmett: Yes, sir, I am.

The Chairman: You consider it to be an important document?

Mr. Emmett: I do indeed, yes.

The Chairman: I'm very glad to hear that, because in that document, which is only.... How old is it - two years?

Mr. Emmett: I believe that to be the maximum -

The Chairman: On page 23 we find the statement, ``Sustainable development is a central theme of the federal government's policy agenda.'' That's a fairly strong statement, don't you think?

Mr. Emmett: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: This document was signed by the cabinet ministers of the time, from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Natural Resources, the President of the Treasury Board.... Everybody signed it.

Do you think this gives you an adequate political mandate?

Mr. Emmett: I believe it gives a political mandate that is above the norm for discussion papers prepared in the government, yes.

The Chairman: Would you then elaborate, as already you did partially with Mrs. Kraft Sloan on a question earlier, on item 13 of your presentation this morning, which says that the value of the commissioner is pragmatic? Don't you think it is more than that?

Mr. Emmett: That the value of the commissioner is more than pragmatic?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Emmett: I believe the value of the commissioner is more than pragmatic. I believe what I said was that the ultimate test is results.

The Chairman: What is the value of the commissioner in your opinion?

Mr. Emmett: What is the value of the commissioner? My view of the value of the commissioner I've tried to lay out in the notes and in some of the answers.

What I would hope the commissioner is able to do in the Ottawa context is what the Auditor General has in his mandate statement; that is, make a difference to how decisions are made with respect to trade-offs between the environment and social and economic objectives, which is the mandate in the act.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Would it be fair for me to conclude that the commissioner could be considered as one of the key officers in implementing a central theme of the present government?

Mr. Emmett: I do not believe I'm an implementer, except in developing my own plan for my own office that fits in with the requirements of the act, even though technically I don't believe we're covered by it. But I monitor the implementation, and in monitoring the implementation I would hope over time that raises the bar, increases expectations, and improves the performance.

.0940

The Chairman: But in the act your role is much more than just monitoring. I may refer you to section 21.1. You are reporting on the progress of category I departments -

Mr. Emmett: Yes.

The Chairman: - towards sustainable development, which is a continually evolving concept based on the integration of social, economic, and environmental concerns. You agree with that?

Mr. Emmett: Yes.

The Chairman: So your role is much more than monitoring.

Mr. Emmett: Absolutely. I report on the extent to which there is a gap between the expressed intention and performance. Certainly.

The Chairman: Right. Now, looking at those powers that have been given to you in section 21.1, how do you plan to proceed with paragraphs (a), (d), (e), and (f)? Item (a) reads ``the integration of the environment and the economy''. How will you proceed in ensuring departments in category I will include in their plans the integration of the two e's?

Mr. Emmett: Again, that goes to the heart of the work program I'm trying to put in place. For one thing, I expect I'm going to take a lot of the expertise that has been created by the office in value-for-money auditing and apply that to looking at the extent to which departments have been successful in achieving the policy objectives they've set for themselves in these areas.

I don't see it as my role to comment on the extent to which a department may make a choice among (a), (b), (c), (d). That's the job of departments to do. It's my job to say that having made this choice, they have or have not been successful in implementing an action plan to get from A to B.

The Chairman: In the introduction to the Guide to Green Government the following appears:

All departments are committed to having their sustainable development strategies in place within two years....

Mr. Emmett: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Do you intend to operate according to that timetable?

Mr. Emmett: Yes. The departments are busy now. I believe some have indicated an intention to have them within one year.

The Chairman: So by June 1998 -

Mr. Emmett: December 15, 1997 would be the two-year date.

The Chairman: That is the date, is it?

Mr. Emmett: That is the date.

The Chairman: All right, and when at that time you discover a number of departments have not included any of the criteria that relate to the integration of environment and the economy, what will be your action plan at that time?

Mr. Emmett: My action plan will be to report strongly and clearly to Parliament that departments have prepared sustainable development strategies and action plans that don't meet the test of the act.

The Chairman: That do not include the criteria outlined in section 21.1. You will be that specific?

Mr. Emmett: That is certainly a guide; absolutely. That lays out my job description.

The Chairman: That's good. And how do you propose to implement paragraph (f) in subsection 21.1?

Mr. Emmett: That's a daunting question. As I said in my answer to Ms Kraft Sloan, I think this is something that is going to evolve over a period of several years, and it will involve a lot of nitty-gritty work. My focus at the moment is on putting in place management systems that have defined results, performance measures, and ways of reporting on progress that people can understand. I believe we need to develop things like (f), ``an integrated approach to planning and making decisions that takes into account... ''. I would like to see departments reporting on those in a results-oriented way, with performance indicators Canadians can understand, so Canadians can understand how these decisions are making a difference to their lives. Otherwise I think we lag behind the expectations Canadians have of their government. Even more seriously, from my point of view, that's practice in the private sector.

The Chairman: Two more brief questions, and I thank you for the answers so far.

.0945

In your presentation this morning, on page 3 you make reference to the policy component reflecting how an integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns has been dealt with. In the case of carbon dioxide and Canada's international commitment to its stabilization and further reduction, how will you report on the performance of the Department of Natural Resources?

Mr. Emmett: I haven't fully decided yet, but clearly there's a target there. The target has been reiterated on many occasions. The broad indications are that the economy is performing in such a way that the target will not be met, and will not be met by a wide margin, and certainly that will be reported on. Since we don't have the result, it's difficult to say more than that at this point in time.

The Chairman: Suppose the Department of Natural Resources does not include sustainable development considerations in its first two-year report. What can you do in order to correct that situation?

Mr. Emmett: The only thing I can do is expose it to the spotlight of the public through reports to Parliament.

The Chairman: Finally, in your annual report to Parliament, what mechanism will be built in for referral to committees?

Mr. Emmett: Perhaps Mr. Cluskey, who is a bit more familiar with the mechanics, could take that one for me.

Mr. Cluskey: The best we can do on what we do.... Of course we report to the public accounts committee and many hearings are held on the chapters there, but we also write a letter to the chairman of the committee, such as yourself - and we have done this in the past to you - suggesting that you might be interested in certain chapters in our report because of their nature, their orientation. So that's how we would bring to your attention or to any other committee's attention something we think the committee might be interested in.

Obviously we have no authority to tell you what you have to be interested in. Nothing in the act directs any of our report to the public accounts committee or this committee or any other committee. It's the choice of you or the chairs of the other committees to make that decision as to whether you want to call us, the Office of the Auditor General, the commissioner, the departments - or both.

The Chairman: So the Auditor General might be writing a letter to one or several committee chairs -

Mr. Cluskey: Yes.

The Chairman: - inviting them to examine whatever portion comes under the jurisdiction of their respective committee.

Mr. Cluskey: We can have up to four reports annually, but we've made it only to three: two periodic reports and one annual report.

In the case of my own chapters, for example, on the hazardous waste and the radioactive waste, last year I believe a letter was sent to you as chair saying that these particular chapters were in that particular report, just drawing your attention to it. I think there was some discussion over the hazardous waste. I don't think there was a formal hearing, but it came up when we were meeting with your committee.

So that's the vehicle we use to try to draw attention to a particular chapter or particular chapters in our various reports to particular committees of Parliament.

The Chairman: So you will continue in that tradition?

Mr. Cluskey: Very definitely, yes.

The Chairman: Second round. Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: Initially, the Bloc Québécois supported the appointment of a commissioner of the environment, provided he was free to act in an independent and objective manner. We felt the commissioner's job should be to monitor the situation, denounce cases of non-compliance and make recommendations. In Quebec, such a person is usually referred to as a watchdog.

I would be disappointed to see money spent strictly for the sake of appearances to create the position of commissioner of the environment if the incumbent were not free to act in an independent and objective way to bring the government and its departments back in line when they have a tendency to get sidetracked.

On taking office, the Liberal government scrapped the Green Plan for which approximately$5 million had been earmarked. However, only $800,000 of this money was ever spent.

.0950

The government doesn't even have an environmental action plan. It is merely improvising. How are you going to proceed? The departments of Health and Agriculture are not following any kind of action plan and there is no coordination where environmental matters are concerned. For example, we still don't have a proposal on the table for destroying toxic chemicals such as PCBs, even though the former Environment minister had promised that such a proposal would be in place by 1995.

As commissioner, you will be have oversight powers. Take for example a foreman's job. Without a building plan, he would have to improvise and this would be a real headache for him. Something similar is happening right now at the Department of the Environment.

Do you anticipate having any problems carrying out your mandate if the situation doesn't change any?

Mr. Emmett: If you're asking me if my job will be difficult, the answer is yes. However, I also believe that I will be able to act in a sufficiently independent manner to fulfil my duties under the act.

Mr. Asselin: You refer to the legislation, but exactly which powers does it confer upon you? Could you please be more specific for us.

Mr. Emmett: The act confers very important powers upon the commissioner. With respect to sustainable development, I have the power to oversee the strategic plans drawn up by the departments and also to report to Parliament on any aspect of the federal government's performance. In my view, this is an enormous amount of power.

The problem, as I see it, is that the legislation gives me too much scope within which to act. I must choose from among many options and priorities. That is what will make my job more difficult, not the lack of power.

Mr. Asselin: Let's consider one example. Bill C-29 which deals with manganese in gasoline is scheduled to be debated on third reading. We can't forget NAFTA and the agreements between Canada and the United States.

Suppose Bill C-29 is adopted and that an American firm that produces MMTs decides to sue the government for over $200 million. What role would you play insofar as this legislation is concerned? Would it be your job to inform the government of the consequences of certain actions and to recommend that it withdraw the bill?

Mr. Emmett: No, I don't believe that I would have a role to play insofar as the consideration of Bill C-29 is concerned. This is a political matter, a matter for Parliament.

Mr. Asselin: This bill is presently under consideration.

Mr. Emmett: In my view, it is the ministers and the members who have a political choice to make, not I.

.0955

Mr. Asselin: If the government were to lose $200 million in a suit of this nature, could you not denounce this action?

Mr. Emmett: If the bill becomes law and there is some sort of fallout, my role will be to determine the costs and benefits of the legislation and the repercussions of the political choice that the Environment Minister made. However, I have no part to play in political discussion or strategy making.

Mr. Asselin: As commissioner, your role then is to act with foresight rather than hindsight. Am I correct?

Mr. Emmett: My job is to monitor the situation and to report on the consequences of the legislation's implementation, not to discuss Parliament's political choices.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Emmett, I observe that at one time you did play a key role in the development of Canada's Green Plan. Later on you represented Environment Canada and the Canadian government nationally and internationally on environmental issues. You participated in the negotiation of international agreements, protocols, and conventions. Later on, I see you were the managing director of the Propane Gas Association of Canada, located in Calgary. That's quite a varied experience, so I would like some comment from you based on that varied experience.

Could you describe what role propane use can have to achieve better practices for the environment? Could you comment on auto use or residential heating? How does it fit in, in its aspect, with what we need to do as a country? We've talked about trying to achieve our international commitments related to global warming and so on. Maybe you could also touch on the issue of both the positive and the perverse incentives related to propane and what might be best. That's a pragmatic, practical example of what you've talked about in your general introductory comments.

Mr. Emmett: Again, this is a very interesting question.

My experience with the propane industry was brief, but it was very interesting. First of all, it gave me the opportunity to have some experience in another part of Canada, where people's attitudes are a bit different. It also gave me the opportunity to work with a range of companies, from the smallest - what we call ``mom-and-pop operations'', people who operate one truck, for example - to the very large, integrated, major oil companies.

My attitude was that it was useful from the point of view of marketing and positioning ourselves with government to tell people the positive environmental story of propane. It offers a number of benefits in terms of air quality and in terms of its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, so there's a positive environmental story to tell. My attitude with my members was also to say that if we wished to tell a positive environmental story, it would be useful to back that up with a total-product stewardship approach to propane, which is similar to the approaches developed in some other industries.

One of the reactions that surprised me the most in my time with the Propane Gas Association was the openness of people to that suggestion. I thought they would say I brought some unrealistic ideas from my previous experience. Instead, they said, you're not telling us anything we don't already know; we have to show a high level of due diligence to get insurance; we have to show a high level of due diligence to get a loan from the bank; and we have to show a high level of due diligence on environmental liabilities to avoid being sued and so on; we are very open to embracing an environmental or product-stewardship ethic. I found that experience very useful and very enlightening.

.1000

Mr. Forseth: What about the positive or perverse incentives around the use of those kinds of fuels?

Mr. Emmett: Propane is a very interesting fuel. Canada produces about 10 billion litres a year, of which it exports about 50%. The remaining 50% goes about one-third into the transportation market, one-third commercial and industrial, one-third residential.

The third that goes into the transportation sector is almost entirely driven by government policy: the difference in tax treatment. Users of propane do not pay federal excise taxes on propane, and in many provinces they don't pay provincial road taxes. So there's a substantial price difference, which drives the desire amongst motorists to convert their automobiles to propane and use propane. So it's really a policy-driven sector of the industry. I think that's the positive incentive.

The negative side of that is a bit more subtle. I think with the positive treatment from the government the industry had a bit of a tendency to rest on its laurels, not making the technological changes that were necessary to keep pace with advances in other engine technologies, and it was beginning to suffer the consequences.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Emmett, I am going to follow up on Mr. Caccia's questions and my own before on the question of how you can influence departments to change the course of certain actions, which we know today may be detrimental to sustainable development. I'm just looking at the sections on reporting, where the Auditor General can make up to three additional reports and you yourself have the right of reporting directly to the House once a year.

If you look at subsection 23(2), that right of yours is pretty extensive, because the first part of subsection 23(2) gives you the right to report on anything you consider should be brought to the attention of the House in relation to environmental and other aspects of sustainable development, including.... In other words, the sustainable development strategy won't be ready for another two years. Meanwhile you are allowed to report on anything that concerns the environment and sustainable development. So regardless of what will happen to sustainable development strategies two years hence, you would be allowed to report today, tomorrow, the next day, to the House.

If you look at the section Mr. Caccia referred to, section 21.1, which is a key operating section, it gives you a lot of scope. Admittedly it talks about monitoring, but it also speaks of reporting on the progress of departments towards sustainable development. It doesn't refer to strategies. It speaks of the progress of category I departments towards sustainable development. In that section it talks about protecting ecosystems, meeting international obligations, and under (f), taking into account the environmental and natural resource costs of different economic options and the economic costs of different environmental and natural resource options.

If you look at sections 21.1 and 23(2) together, it would seem to me they give you huge powers to sensitize the House once a year, or at any time of your choosing within that year, about things that you can see ahead that category I departments are failing in, in any one of these categories, or in any lack of progress toward sustainable development, which is a huge number.

.1005

In our particular case, as we both referred to before in our questions and answers, we know, for instance, that on climate change we're not meeting our international obligations. It's officially on the record that we're 13% deficient. We know why.

We know that also in regard to the way we've been taking into account the environmental and natural resource costs of different economic options. This particular committee recently issued a report to show why we are not using the best resource and economic options in relation to international obligations under climate change.

Knowing what we know today, that we're already failing in many respects, do you intend in the first year of your mandate to sensitize the House and use your powers under subsection 23(2) to place us all on notice about the failings - not those that we're trying to rectify within two years, but that we know today?

Mr. Emmett: Again we have a question that really goes to the heart of my interpretation of my mandate, and that is whether I should be a participant in the policy process - for example, by issuing early warnings - or not. I don't believe I should be.

I understand the comments you've made about the numbers being apparent with respect to climate change. I'd like to make two responses to that.

The first is that we will not only monitor the sustainable development strategy but also continue with our thorough examination of individual environmental issues. One of the individual environmental issues that is going to be looked at and reported on is climate change. That's a little bit on a separate track. It's going to involve me working with my colleagues who are responsible for the Department of Natural Resources. That will not necessarily be reported by me in a green report to Parliament; as soon as it's ready, that will be reported in the next periodic report of the Auditor General.

On an issue of the complexity of climate change, which raises many of the issues that were raised by the hon. member on my right, interdepartmental cooperation and so on, it's very important that we take the time to have an authoritative look at some of the reasons why there's been a breakdown between intention and realization. I regard that as being the role of the Auditor General, but it's retrospective. It's not raising a red flag that something is going to happen.

I believe that my role is monitoring and reporting on the progress towards sustainable development. To me, monitoring means kind of looking after the fact at how well departments have done, particularly in the context of the traditions of the Office of the Auditor General.

Mr. Lincoln: But it seems to me there are two mandates there: monitoring, one; reporting, two.

It seems to me that one of the most powerful sections in regard to reporting is subsection 23(2), which goes far beyond the sustainable development strategies. It would seem to me, having participated in the work that went on before the act was proclaimed, that this is one of the reasons why we also gave latitude to the Auditor General for additional reports in any one year.

.1010

I was wondering if you don't see two different sets of mandates, one the monitoring of progress towards sustainable development strategies...and I agree with you that in that case you can't very well anticipate what this is going to be until the action plans are set. At the same time, surely in regard to reporting on anything that you consider should be brought to attention in relation to environmental and other aspects of sustainable development there are now many things that should be brought to the attention of the House by an independent body to flag and sensitize Parliament and the public at large that unless we do X, the sustainable development strategies will be too late anyway; we have to start doing a lot of things now. I was wondering if you don't agree that this other mandate of yours is just as critical, if not more so, than the other one, the monitoring.

Mr. Emmett: Thank you again, Mr. Lincoln, for raising a very fundamental question.

To make a kind of parenthetical comment, it's always surprised me the extent to which people have said to me, outside this room, you lack sufficient scope in your current job. I look at subsection 23(3) and say there's enormous scope there; the question really is choosing what one is going to report on.

Having said that, again, I think these reports are made by me on behalf of the Auditor General according to subsection 23(2) and will continue the tradition of the Auditor General of being independent views of the performance of the government in relation to the policy objectives it sets for itself. Departments are going to continue to set those objectives whether they're in sustainable development plans, expressed in legislation, or expressed elsewhere. I can have a role in picking out areas outside sustainable development strategies where departments have set themselves goals and for one reason or another may not have achieved them, or for one reason or another may have demonstrated spectacular success. I don't think we should overlook success stories.

But again, I come back to the necessity of not becoming involved in the process of the gathering, analysis, and interpretation of information necessary to make policy choices. That is the job of departments and of ministers and of Parliament.

Mr. Lincoln: You see, that's where we're not on the same wavelength, because it would seem to me the Auditor General.... To pick just one example from last year or the year before, the Auditor General had an extensive report about nuclear waste in which he picked out all sorts of failures and gaps in proper handling of wastes and safeguards and so forth. It was a castigating report. It would seem to me if you take any one of these parts under section 21.1....

Let's take meeting international obligations, which is a huge commitment of a government, regardless of whether it's Liberal, Conservative, or whatever it is, in the short and long term. We have set targets. We have committed ourselves to certain obligations, which are very defined. Isn't that the reason why subsection 23(2) is so broad, that it gives you the latitude to pick out any one of these areas at any one time, especially in the knowledge of our potential deficiencies, or actual deficiencies, which are all admitted in public and everything, that perhaps if we did certain things faster in the meanwhile, while we wait for these strategies, you could play a huge role in bringing it to the attention of the House that if we did X, Y, Z today we would be farther ahead of the game in meeting our international obligations than if we waited another two years to see what the departments are saying about action plans and strategies.

.1015

Is that why this subsection 23(2), before we get to (a) and (b), is so vast, and why it says ``including''? Instead of saying``specifically'', it says ``including''.

Mr. Emmett: In many ways I agree with you. I agree about the scope of section 23. I agree about the scope of the act and the ability to choose amongst a huge range of troubling issues, issues that trouble me deeply. I've tried to emphasize the extent to which I believe the gap between performance and rhetoric is one that's corrosive for the ability of Ottawa to be an effective agent for change in society. I want to choose from this huge universe of potential topics, ones that are going to be useful and make a difference in trying to address that.

Having said that, I really believe, within fairly strict limits, I don't have the role to become involved in the policy process, to apprehend that a policy is not going to be successful and say it must be changed in a certain way. I don't believe that is the Auditor General's role.

On the other hand, I do believe we have a potential role, for example, in our capacity to do special studies, to look at things such as what the best practice is in some issues. Why don't we report on best practice and let people draw the conclusion that there's a huge gap between best practice and what's going on in the Government of Canada?

I reiterate that I don't believe it would serve my effectiveness in the long run to be a participant in the policy process rather than to have the role as I believe I understand it.

The Chairman: You can influence it, can't you?

Mr. Emmett: Yes.

Mr. Cluskey: I know of only one major audit office in the world that has a mandate to comment on policy, and that's the General Accounting Office in the United States. We have a very close contact with them, and just recently they've come under criticism because people believe some of their comments on policy have drawn them, naturally, into the political realm and this has caused problems with their independence and credibility. It's an extremely touchy situation. Generally, this is why very few of the offices - there may be one other country - get into policy. At some point you're drawn so far in that you have a problem.

About influencing policy, we know, for example, that in a couple of recent budget speeches by governments the Auditor General's office has been mentioned because we've said something that's of particular concern and it's influenced the budget. So, directly or indirectly, we have had influence on policy. Sometimes our reports, based on the implementation of so many negative comments, raise a question about policy, obviously.

It's just that the Office of the Auditor General cannot say there should or should not be, for example, an unemployment insurance program, or that a particular toxic should be regulated. But we would look and comment if Environment Canada, for instance, did not take into account, when they were looking at what they should regulate, a particular situation, when all the reading and material say, hey, there's a problem here. We would at least ask the question, why didn't the department, or such-and-such a department, consider this? We have ways of getting around it without directly commenting on the merits of high-level government policy.

Mr. Lincoln: I never suggested you should comment on policy as such. In fact, I gave the example of the nuclear industry, where the Auditor General made a report saying that in the processes and systems there is failure in meeting the obligations and the regulations.

.1020

So you draw your own conclusions as to where the policy should be changed. You're not saying that the policy should be changed or that such-and-such should be the policy.

What I'm saying is that right now we've got certain international obligations. I took one example where we have conventions, where we have targets and so forth but they are not being met. Surely, without influencing policy, which is already made anyway.... Our policy is to meet these international obligations, to subscribe to them, to take a certain path. We all know that. But very obviously we're not observing it in certain areas.

Isn't that part of what will influence changes, if we just flag exactly what you did with the nuclear industries so we all knew because we had a document here that crystallized all these various things, from an independent authority that is not political, that is beyond the reach of ministries? That is what I was trying to say: it gives you so much scope in reporting on the lack of progress, or the progress, toward sustainable development that you could flag practical things.

Mr. Emmett: I agree with many of the things you say, and I have read the report on nuclear waste and think it's an excellent one.

With respect to some of the issues you've raised of making international obligations and living up to them, we have an audit plan that covers a wide range of environmental issues. What we're looking at right now are two in particular that would fall into the broad category you're talking about. One is an audit of how we've done on ozone, and I believe that will be reporting in November 1997. One that is a much more wide-ranging audit that is just beginning to be scoped out is an audit of how we've done on our climate change obligations.

I very much agree that our international commitments are a legitimate subject for me to comment on and gaps between performance and commitment are legitimate subjects for me to comment on, on an authoritative and independent basis.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I believe Mr. Lincoln has covered this ground quite adequately. But, just as a point of clarification, is the Auditor General's office proposing to do an audit on our ability to meet, or what we've been doing in regard to, our climate change obligations?

Mr. Emmett: Yes, climate change will be the subject of an audit that is scheduled to report in 1998, which is currently in the process of being scoped out. Our international obligations will be an important component of that, yes.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Maybe we have had enough clarification on this, but, if you say you don't want to comment on policy and whether it's a good policy or whether we're going to be able to meet our obligations under it, I'm trying to understand at what point you determine when you can actually assess that.

Mr. Emmett: That's a really good question. That is why I'd like to become a little bit more familiar with my job before answering too definitively.

There is an audit schedule that goes up to the year 2001 that is developed for the office. Many of the environmental issues have high priority and they're under way right now. For something like climate change a typical audit would take about a year. Others take longer if they're on more complicated subjects. Climate change is a particularly complex subject and we're going to take our time and do a very good and authoritative job on it and report in 1998.

I agree that the timing of our reports is a bit of a variable. We can move things up or down depending on how they strike us as being important. Clearly climate change, ozone depletion, contaminated sites, and transboundary hazardous waste are all things that strike us as being very important and are under way now.

.1025

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I guess the problem is that when the ship of state is drifting in a particular direction, if you spend an awful lot of time undertaking a study...and if it came out at an earlier point whether or not we are meeting our objectives under a particular policy or program area, it might be easier to end up meeting our end objectives, because there are objectives in process that contribute to meeting your final objectives. For example, if we had your report on climate change sooner, that might end up helping us meet our final objectives more effectively and more efficiently.

Mr. Emmett: I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. I've been going over testimony made by the Auditor General in response to earlier discussions. I think he made the point that the information may be useful, but if the ship of state is drifting.... There is no substitute for leadership, in other areas.

I think in the long run it is very useful to the machinery of government to have an Auditor General with independence, credibility, and the ability to take the proper time to make authoritative results available to Parliament to help in the supervision of the government. That is an enormous advantage, and I see it as my role to protect the involvement -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If the Auditor General's office wants to be able to make a difference, sometimes doing it sooner rather than later is where the real difference can happen.

Mr. Cluskey: In response to that, I have to say we can't do that climate change sooner. We're starting to work on it now. It's a very complex audit.

I'll just briefly mention the audits that are going to be reported in 1997: transboundary hazardous wastes, salmon fisheries habitat, energy efficiency, managing groundfish, environmental assessment, ozone depletion. These are all scheduled to report in the next year. It's just physically impossible for us, with the resources we have, or even with the additional resources, to report this. As the commissioner said, our audits take somewhere between ten and eighteen months to carry out. But I think we are going to have a tremendous profile with the commissioner's report and the fact that we have a commissioner in the office, and we will continue to build on studies such as the radioactive waste and the hazardous waste. We're going to be reporting on contaminated sites in November.

One other thing I might mention is three years ago the public accounts of the Government of Canada said nothing about liabilities for environmental contingencies. They do now. We have nagged at the government to get something in there. There will be an observation on the public accounts attached to our opinion and specifically referring to dollar amounts. As far as I know - I haven't seen the final version - we're trying to bring to the public's attention, to Parliament's attention, that a tremendous cost is associated with our environmental problems. This is where our office has advanced the information needs of Parliament and committees such as yours.

Mr. Reed: I think Ms Kraft Sloan and Mr. Lincoln have really got to the heart of the matter. One of the things I believe we've learned here is the limitations of the auditor's role. It seems to me, then, that receiving the reports should give us the responsibility to move into the alternatives that will make these things happen, if they are not happening at present essentially in the way the policy dictates.

I was going to ask when you were commenting on, in the first instance, ground level ozone when your report came down, if you were able to include alternatives that might be beneficial, and new ideas. It seems to me that gets into policy somehow, or the debate about whether or not it is policy is somewhat inhibiting to you. Am I reading the limitations of the Auditor General properly here?

.1030

Mr. Emmett: I believe we're doing stratospheric ozone.

Mr. Reed: Okay.

Mr. Emmett: In our reports I believe we can point out problems, point out gaps in approaches, and suggest alternatives, suggest how things could be better, suggest how horizontal issues - I think that is the current terminology - issues that involve more than one department, one actor, can be coordinated better, with better decision-making systems. Those are all things that I think are well within the mandate of the commissioner and that I would very much intend to do.

The Chairman: From this end of the table, Mr. Emmett, I keep bringing back the Guide to Green Government, because it seems to me that it contains elements that could give you all the authority you need in performing your mandate, particularly in political terms. On the ``turning talk into action'' page, it reads:

...we are creating a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to hold government accountable for greening its policies, operations and programs.

It seems to me that this is language that gives you more of a mandate than just closing gaps between talk and action. It gives you in political terms - not in legislative terms of course - a proactive role.

Would you agree with that?

Mr. Emmett: I believe that it's part of the creation of the post, yes, that it enables me to do a job, but I believe that my job is to assist members of Parliament in holding the government to account for its performance. I don't believe it's something I can do on my own or the Auditor General can do on his own.

The Chairman: This is why, then, you were given an act that accompanies, let us say, this political statement contained in the Guide to Green Government, which is signed by all cabinet ministers, one by one. Therefore you are launched by a very strong political statement.

Would you agree with that?

Mr. Emmett: I agree with that entirely, and I've certainly been recommending it as a touchstone for departments who are in the process of preparing their sustainable development strategies.

The Chairman: I'm glad to hear that.

Turning again to section 23, would you think it is fair to say that if you're concerned about a possible conflict between domestic and international policies, then you would want to raise that conflict in your first report?

Mr. Emmett: I think the possibility exists that I would raise it. Certainly I have the authority to do so.

The Chairman: Then I will give you an example that you might want to consider.

There is a conflict between our international commitments on climate change and the policies of the Department of Natural Resources. In other words, that department has policies that are not supportive of our international commitment. That department knows that we will be 13% below sustainability, below the carbon dioxide stabilization target set for the year 2000. You are very familiar with this fact.

Mr. Emmett: I am, yes.

The Chairman: Not only that, but we have very serious reservations about whether we'll be able to reach international commitments of minus 20% in CO2 emissions by the year 2005.

.1035

We are internationally making statements that are not matched nor supported adequately by our federal departments in charge of the implementation of that particular policy.

Not only that, but we have fiscal and tax arrangements that continue to encourage our dependence on fossil fuels; fiscal and tax arrangements that continue to maintain as a Cinderella the treatment of renewable sources of energy. We have virtually no policy in sight, neither fiscally nor tax-wise nor otherwise, aimed at managing the transition from non-renewables to renewables that may have to take place 40, 50, 60 years from now. The people at the energy commission in Paris are saying in their estimate we will run out of non-renewables around the middle of the next century. We are not addressing these items.

Therefore it seems to me that when, as by Mr. Lincoln, your attention is drawn to subsection 23(2) -

(2) The Commissioner shall...report annually to the House of Commons concerning anything that the Commissioner considers should be brought to the attention of that House in relation to environmental and other aspects of sustainable development

- here you have more than just an opportunity, you have a duty, to report on this conflict between domestic and international policies.

I will give you another example. On the question of endangered species, the Government of Canada has made substantial commitments abroad. On the subject of biodiversity, it was one of the first nations to sign the declaration in Rio de Janeiro. Within Canada, however, the provinces are giving very little support to the federal government's commitments in these two crucial areas.

Again, it seems to me these are items of concern to the commissioner. Would you like to comment?

Mr. Emmett: Yes, I would like to comment.

The gap you note between the target and performance on climate change I think is one of the most notable gaps in environmental policy. It is certainly one of the most striking.

The Chairman: I'm not saying ``gap''. I said ``conflict''. In the last budget a budgetary measure was announced in relation to tar sands; in other words, a measure that additionally increases our dependence on fossil fuels and that therefore will increase our production of carbon dioxide. This is not a gap. This is a contradiction of our policy on CO2 in the red book as well as internationally.

Mr. Emmett: You asked me, Mr. Chairman, what I intended to put in the 1997 report. I will likely note as an example the gap in our performance with respect to CO2. I think it's one of the most notable of the problems I noted in my opening statement and it's considered to be extremely important. I do not intend to go much further than noting it and saying we will be doing a full-fledged audit. We will be identifying any of the areas in which government policies produce an obvious conflict between the articulation of a goal and its achievement. That is certainly a subject of the audit.

So on the gap I do intend to use examples when I talk about the gap between the walk and the talk. But about authoritative reports on conflicts and inability to achieve specific targets, I want to have the authoritative results of the investigation we're doing in front of me before I do that.

Similarly with endangered species. I think that's another important example, one that gives rise to the cynicism about our ability to carry through on our commitments. I would certainly point to that. But we do have an audit on biodiversity scheduled and I will want to wait for some of the results of that before getting too far into it. I want to be able to speak authoritatively on these issues.

.1040

The Chairman: Mrs. Payne.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question you just raised is one I've been mulling over.

I apologize for arriving here late.

My congratulations, Commissioner, on your new job.

I come from an area where employment is very important, and any reliance on companies such as the oil companies to help create employment.... I'm sure that the government will say that with set targets.... I know that we haven't been reaching them, but we have been doing our best to reach them. Maybe the targets that were set were in fact too high. We really need this economic tool in order to be able to feed our people. What would be your comment?

Also, these companies that are involved in fossil fuels are most likely saying that they are going further than government is asking them to go at the moment.

Mr. Emmett: I would respond in two ways. One is to thank you for your congratulations, and the other is to thank you for asking me another really hard question.

The mandate of the commissioner is sustainable development. It's the integration of the economy and the environment. It's to achieve a kind of balance that allows us to have meaningful job creation, meaningful growth, and an environment that continues to be healthy and clean.

Particularly early in the mandate and the development of my work program and so on, because of the historical record, I'll probably be putting more emphasis on the environmental side of the equation, heading towards that equilibrium, than on the economic side. I think the economic side has a pretty good history of being able to articulate its own objectives.

In some sense the integration really has to occur at a political level, as opposed to the level of the commissioner.

Certainly in making my comments and so on, particularly in the early years, I would probably see my emphasis being more on the environmental aspect than on some of the other aspects of the equation. But the long-term objective is.... I think no one has bettered Dr. Brundtland's phrase that economy and environment are two sides of the same coin. To say it's one or the other frames the debate in the wrong way, and what we want to achieve.... I think every survey I've seen indicates that Canadians believe we can have both.

Mr. Reed: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Before we conclude this very fruitful meeting, let me draw to your attention the fact that there's been an Order in Council appointing the executor director of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Mr. David McGuinty. I invite you to let me know, privately or otherwise, if you would like him to appear before the committee as a result of this development.

There has also been an Order in Council appointing the new Deputy Minister of the Environment, Mr. Ian Glen, who will be appearing before the committee next week.

I also draw your attention to the fact that the clerk has prepared a very thorough and precise timetable for September and parts of October, which was in your offices last week. I urge you to make sure that it is adapted to your busy schedules.

Mr. Emmett, this was a very fruitful morning. We thank you for appearing before us. We thank also your colleagues who have come from the Auditor General's office for giving us an insight into your thoughts and plans for the future.

We look forward to your first report. As you have heard from most committee members, we would like to have in you a paladin of sustainable development, and therefore we look forward to a very strong report to Parliament. We wish you well in your new assignment.

.1045

Mr. Emmett: Thank you for your good wishes, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to appear here before you.

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page