[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 6, 1997
.0918 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning.
[English]
We apologize for the delay in building the required quorum. This is mostly due to weather conditions.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome Mr. Godin and his team. We are very happy to see you.
[English]
The meeting, as you know, members of the committee, is to welcome, first of all, Mr. Emmett and his officials. Second, it's to hear about the report he tabled in the House of Commons yesterday.
Before giving Mr. Emmett the floor, I would like to draw your attention to a poll published in the local newspaper yesterday. It was conducted by Insight Canada Research in November for Environment Canada on a range of environmental topics. It gives the federal government an average rating of 4.8 on a scale of one to 10. The provinces had an average of 4.7 on the same scale.
.0920
Respondents in Quebec and British Columbia were the only ones to view the performances of their provincial governments more positively than that of the federal government.
If members of the committee are interested in the balance of the article, I'm sure we can make some copies.
Moving on with our agenda, welcome, Mr. Emmett. I'm sure we all have questions to ask. The sooner you can give us a summary and an insight into what you are proposing, the sooner we can open up for a round or more of questions. The floor is yours.
Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a great pleasure to be here this morning to discuss my first report.
I do have a prepared statement, which I have tabled with the clerk. I do not propose to read it. Rather, I would prefer to informally highlight some of the key points in the report very briefly so we can have a maximum amount of time for questions.
With me today are Rick Smith and Wayne Cluskey, who are both from my office and who will help me to respond to any questions and concerns you may have.
[Translation]
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is my first report. It is a description of my mandate, my work plan and my priorities. I attach great importance to my first report. Because it is very important to start off on the right foot and set the direction my work will take.
First of all, why do we have a commissioner? I have the impression that the answer is that parliamentarians, members of this committee, environmental groups, and Canadian men and women were concerned about the federal government's performance as regards the environment and sustainable development. In preparing my first report, I realized that these concerns were justified.
[English]
Second, I'd like to pose the question: why do we have a commissioner of environment and sustainable development? I think the sustainable development part of the title is very important. It reflects an understanding of what I think Canadian citizens are looking for in terms of the performance of the federal government, and that is sustainable development.
In the report, I think we tried to capture what we understand Canadians are looking for, and that is an economy that is well managed, performs well, generates jobs, creates income for people, and creates the wealth that allows us to maintain a social safety net.
Second, they're looking for high-level environmental quality and levels of environmental quality that are improving.
Third, they are very concerned about issues of fairness, particularly intergenerational equity, which is the legacy they are going to leave to future generations.
They don't see these goals as being in conflict. They think we should be intelligent and creative enough to have them at the same time.
In preparing the report, I've drawn on three different sources.
The first source is some 42 reports prepared by the Auditor General and his staff over the past decade that deal with the environment and environmentally related issues.
The second source comes from the deliberations of your own committee, Mr. Chairman, in the discussions surrounding the creation of this position.
The third source is the OECD environmental review of Canada, which was completed in 1995.
.0925
I found the findings of these reports very interesting because of the elements they have in common. First, as a generality, what I've seen and what I've read leading up to this report and in my own travels over the past several years with respect to policy, Canada is generally regarded as having a very good, creative, and positive record internationally and domestically. We're a positive force on the international scene, and many of the changes we've made and the new institutions we've created create a lot of interest in others.
The problems that recur throughout these reports basically refer to management and implementation issues. Of these, there are three that are most important.
First, there's a widespread indication that we fail far too frequently to do what we say we are going to do.
Second, there is a pervasive problem with the ability of departments to cooperate with each other on issues of necessity right across more than one portfolio. I think coordination problems exist within departments, between departments, and between different levels of government, and they can be extremely important.
In my research, I read David Crombie's report on the Toronto waterfront. In that, he had a very forceful quote. He said that the failure of governments to cooperate was the single biggest barrier to environmental improvement in the area he was studying. I find that quite a striking comment.
Third, another comment that recurs throughout these reports is the lack of user-friendly information on the government's performance with respect to the environment and sustainable development that would allow parliamentarians and Canadians to understand how well we're doing. There's a lack of good results definition, measurement, and understandable reporting.
There are two results from these problems. First, the environment suffers. Second, I believe the amount of confidence Canadians have in government as a leader on environment and sustainable development can erode. I'm particularly concerned about that, because that is a position that has been built up over a period of several years. It's a position of great value. Once lost, I think it would be extremely difficult to regain.
My report tried to direct our attention to what can be done about the management problems I've identified. I think, broadly speaking, that it focuses on applying good techniques of management to the problems we've identified in basically four areas.
First, I believe we need much better business planning and understanding of the business we're in, particularly with respect to the role all ministries and the government as a whole have in achieving environmental and sustainable development. That's why, to me, the sustainable development strategies are so important. They're a mechanism for creating an obligation in departments to examine their performance as corporate entities and their formulation of policy judgments in a way that takes impacts on the environment and sustainable development into account. I think that's a major step forward, potentially.
Second, with respect to results definition measurement and reporting, these two should be an integral part of the sustainable development strategy. In addition, we'll be undertaking some work in the office that is focused on conducting special studies that help the government as a whole improve its ability to measure results and report on them.
Third, there's the question of learning. How do we learn from our track record on results and reporting? This is where I think our program of audits and special studies is of particular interest. These are formal mechanisms that have been developed over the years that allow us to learn from our experience with respect to specific issues. They're very important.
The last thing is certainly not the least. In fact, I think the three I've already mentioned are not all that relevant unless we have the capacity to change, unless we have a systematic, built-in way of changing.
Again, I come back to the sustainable development strategies and their importance and the provision that requires them to be renewed every three years. That to me is an ideal time to incorporate in a formal way what we've learned over the process.
.0930
[Translation]
My role consists primarily in helping parliamentarians assess their environmental performance with respect to sustainable development and to account for the results.
Secondly, it involves helping Canadian men and women assess the federal government's performance with respect to the environment and sustainable development.
Thirdly, from a technical point of view, my role consists in helping departments enhance their capacity to manage sustainable development issues.
[English]
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I see my role basically as one of serving parliamentarians and making their jobs easier, of meeting the need of Canadians to understand what's going on with respect to the environment and sustainable development and our track record, and ultimately, of supporting the leadership role that the government has established over the years with respect to policy and institutional developments.
I believe we have the talents, the creativity, and the energy to achieve what Canadians want, and what Canadians want, in my view, is sustainable development in the economy and the environment, and equity. What we are missing at this point in time, I think, is the will, the patience, and the discipline to apply state-of-the-art management techniques to the environmental agenda to deal with that recurring criticism that far too frequently we fail to do what we say we are going to do.
With these sorts of changes, Mr. Chairman, I'm very confident that we can make substantial progress towards sustainable development.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you. You can be assured that your report will be of enormous help to parliamentarians here on the Hill. In addition to that, copies of your report will be distributed and highlighted next week at a meeting of the sustainable development committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva. As you know, that organization represents parliamentarians of some 160 parliaments and therefore is a unique channel for advancing the observations, the recommendations, and the points that you make in your report.
We have a good hour ahead of us for a good round of questions.
We'll start with Monsieur Godin, followed by Mr. Adams, Mr. Knutson, and the chair.
Monsieur Godin.
[Translation]
Mr. Godin (Châteauguay): Two points have left me puzzled and I would like an explanation. Could you elaborate a little bit on the lack of co-operation between departments? What do you mean and what solutions do you have to offer?
Secondly, when you talk about a better understanding of what is going on in the department and in government, does that mean that the departments, but mainly the government, are not supporting you in the work you do or in the mandate you have been entrusted with?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Emmett.
[Translation]
Mr. Emmett: The lack of co-operation among departments is a problem that exists not only with respect to the environment or sustainable development, but also with respect to government paperwork.
.0935
Often, the problems raised involve not only the Department of the Environment, but several departments, namely in the case of climate change. We need a high level of co-operation on the part of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Natural Resources, but also on the part of other departments.
It is very difficult, because there are no mechanisms to ensure a high level of co-operation among departments. There is no central agency to ensure a high level of co-operation. There are no effective interdepartmental mechanisms to ensure a high level of co-operation. I feel that there is a need to work on mechanisms that could be used to ensure a high level of co-operation among departments, because this lack of cooperation is more serious in the case of the environment and sustainable development.
As for measuring results, the definition and a good reporting system are also problematic for all departments. It is a difficult technical problem and not a problem of understanding. We must improve our techniques and our tools.
[English]
The Chairman: One might also add the fact that in every large human organization there is a healthy tension, if you like, between the components of that organization, namely the departments, particularly when their mandates at times are so different one from the other. When there is this kind of tension and competition, or perhaps lack of cooperation, in the end they are resolved at a political level through cabinet. Don't you agree with that, Mr. Emmett?
Mr. Emmett: Yes, I do, and allow me to refer to the sustainable development strategies. In receiving sustainable strategies from all 24 departments and taking an overview of them, we will be able to identify the areas where there are inconsistencies, where there are gaps, and where there are opportunities for improvement with respect to approaches to the same problem.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin. Mr. Adams, please.
[English]
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Emmett, welcome to the committee. First, I want to thank you for providing our offices with advance material. It really was very useful.
And it's nice to see Mr. Cluskey here again. We remember his presentations also.
With respect to the report, I have to say that I think you've taken a very sensible approach for a first report. I'm sure future reports will be more obviously critical, but I think it's good to start in this way to give all the players an idea of what you're thinking and of what your approach is going to be.
There's a point in here that concerns me a good deal. Somewhere in the report you make the point that Canadians are losing faith in the federal government in these areas of environment and sustainable development. I think you say somewhere that by a small margin they still recognize the federal government as some sort of a leader, but only by a small margin.
.0940
It seems to me there likely is a double problem here. As you say, we're a major employer, major landlord, and so on. Even if we were functioning nine out of ten in that area, if in fact that is not translated into leadership through what we do abroad or in the minds of Canadians, we're losing a lot of the advantage of it.
I wonder if you would care to talk a little more about that. To me it's not just a matter of cleaning up the federal government's act in various areas - I suppose you have to have that as a moral base - but at the same time it's a matter of using that to demonstrate leadership so that in all other areas of the country - the private sector, the other levels of government, and so on - we are seen to be leaders.
Mr. Emmett: This is something I've thought about a great deal over the years, because I've spent a lot of time doing policy at the federal level in the Department of the Environment and other departments. I myself have always had the opinion that there are different types of authority the government has as an institution. There are authorities that derive from a kind of formal institutional or constitutional position, but there's also the question of moral authority. What force does an attempt to show policy leadership have if we do not practise what we preach, if we do not say what we are going to do?
To me, implementation and policy are one part of a whole, and they both need to be there if over the long term we're going to have the moral authority to be a positive and creative force on the policy agenda. I do believe very strongly that the government has a responsibility to lead in its own operation, setting a good example for people, and in its rule-making and policy-making activities; absolutely.
Mr. Adams: Again, I realize at this stage it is hypothetical, but it seems to me we have to be thinking about the leadership side while we're cleaning up our own act. So in the hypothetical case we were functioning very well. In addition to that, somehow we would have to keep reaching out. For example, in these departmental strategies you're discussing it's not just enough to say Department X is doing very well in its own organization. It seems to me a component of that should be conveying that information; conveying that they have followed through. A couple of times you made the point that failure to follow through is a great moral weakness. These departments should have that as part of their plan, and the government as a whole should.
Mr. Emmett: Yes, I agree.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, on this matter of coordination that our colleague raised, in some of the legislation we're dealing with at the moment we're very conscious of the fact that 40% of the country is made up of the territories. Although a great deal of devolution is going on, the federal government has unusual influence in those areas. They are also still relatively pristine areas, so globally speaking they really are quite special huge areas.
I wonder if you have given any thought to that. It seems to me the territories and the federal government's role there have a special place in environment and sustainable development in this country, domestically and in terms of our image abroad, and therefore in coordination between the line ministries. I know Indian and Northern Affairs has a special mandate there, but Fisheries and Oceans and other departments in fact very often have more people in the territories than Indian and Northern Affairs do. I wonder if you have given any particular thought to that, because of the huge area the territories represent.
Mr. Emmett: It is something to which I've given some thought over the years and in my time in Environment Canada, because I've been very conscious of the very high value Canadians attach to wilderness areas and the responsibility for stewardship of them that I think most people feel. I've not focused on that in detail yet specifically in my own work, but I would expect to see it in the sustainable development strategies of departments that have a significant stewardship responsibility for that part of the country, and we'll be looking for those issues to be adequately covered.
.0945
Mr. Adams: Just to add to that... You mention that the present view of climatic change involves the idea, of course, that the effect is greatly magnified at high latitudes, and it's 40% that we're discussing. Obviously it's high-latitude territory, so it's particularly sensitive to climatic change and therefore particularly important globally. I hope you and the departments bear that in mind.
I would also like to ask about the petition process. I know you've given an example in here. I think you mention that one petition has been put forward. I knew about that, but when I read the report I realized I had assumed, Mr. Emmett, in some way it was tied to our regular petition process. If we get a proper petition, it can be tabled in the House of Commons. It's received as a proper petition, then within so many days the department most closely associated with it responds.
By the way, if I receive a petition that's addressed to a department, I can't table it in that way in the House of Commons. The petitioners have to petition Parliament.
I wonder if for the benefit of the record and for ourselves you could just run through your petition process.
Mr. Emmett: Thank you for asking that question, because I think the petition process is widely misunderstood, and one thing I hope to get out of this report is an understanding amongst Canadians that we are now open for business and we're here to receive their petitions.
I think one confusion that arises comes from the terminology used. To my way of thinking, in our act a petition is almost synonymous with a letter. You don't have to spend a great deal of time gathering signatures or following a very formal route. Simply, if you have a concern about the way government is handling a particular issue you can forward those concerns to me.
My responsibility in turn is to forward that to the minister responsible for that area and to monitor whether or not a response is given. The minister has 120 days to respond. If he or she does not respond within that period I can report that performance to Parliament.
I don't really have a role in evaluating the quality of the responses to petitions from ministers, but they have an importance to me in the sense that in handling them I also get an understanding of the concerns that are on the minds of Canadians. That in turn can help shape my work program.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Emmett, I mention this deliberately. In my office we encourage people to submit petitions. But I have received petitions with hundreds or thousands of signatures and they were not proper, from the point of view of the existing House of Commons petition procedure, because, for example, the department was named. So then although - and I don't think the Speaker likes it - we can get up and present them in the House of Commons and a small item appears in Hansard, the petition does not trigger the process. Yet people have gone to a great deal of trouble to collect these signatures.
Two things. One is that I would urge you to keep articulating what your petition process means, or else there will be confusion. The second is to ask whether you do in any way see the petitions on environmental matters that we as members of Parliament submit in the House of Commons. Are you anywhere in that loop?
Mr. Emmett: No, I don't think we are.
Mr. Adams: If I might suggest it - and it would not be too onerous - I would have someone monitor the petitions, both the petitions that are presented and the responses that are tabled within so many days, just so you have a sense of that.
Mr. Emmett: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by saying I find your report fairly comprehensive in laying a framework for a work plan and I don't have any difficulty with the key messages in it. So I want to speak a bit tangentially, if that's all right.
On the issue of assisting parliamentarians in doing their job, I'm curious what input you might have received from parliamentarians, or what your views are, on what we need to help us do our job better, more specifically than what you've indicated so far.
.0950
Mr. Emmett: Certainly I've tried to meet with members of the committee on a bilateral basis. I'm also anxious to establish an ongoing relationship with the committee and to receive members' views.
I think the concern that's expressed in the report is a more general one about the difficulty of producing user-friendly, understandable information so that people can exercise their right to oversee the activities of the civil service in a way that is effective.
Mr. Knutson: Let me go back to start around the questions regarding the big picture. I'm one of the more junior members on the committee, but it's my impression that as a country we have lots of good data when comparing ourselves to our main trading partners and the rest of the world in terms of economic growth, in terms of employment, in terms of our tax system, in terms of our productivity. Whenever I ask the department how we do compared to the rest of the world - even if it's the state of Michigan, which you would think wouldn't be difficult to find out - in terms of how they're doing in cleaning up their environment and how we're doing in cleaning up our environment, I get this kind of odd look like it's an unusual question to ask and they can't really tell me. If I were to ask - and I have asked this - what's one good idea that they may be using in California, Michigan, or Europe that Canadians might look at as an effective way to clean up the environment, I get puzzled.
I just wondered whether you might see that as an area of special interest or whether you might see it as part of your job to look at where we sit internationally.
Mr. Emmett: Thank you. That is also a question that I've pondered and have been asked about, particularly in academic circles. My view on that is that it is something we might consider at some future point in our work program as it evolves over time.
Initially, we probably want to allocate our resources in the areas where we have a comparative advantage. I think our areas of comparative advantage are not so much national statistics on overall performance, but the evaluation of smaller units - firms or departments - and the extension of accounting principles in order that we can keep track of performance at a more micro level, a smaller-unit level, as opposed to the macro level. For that reason we have on our work plan something called accounting for sustainable development. It involves developing the techniques of accounting in a way that we can show a firmer department impact a little bit more clearly in terms of the department's impact on environment and sustainable development.
At the moment, on the larger, more macro-level indicators, I think ministries like the Department of the Environment, with its state of the environment report, or Statistics Canada, with the work they've been doing on green national accounting, may be better placed to advance that particular area. It's something we may be able to build on as we become better at doing what I think is in our particular area of interest and comparative advantage.
Mr. Knutson: Do I take it that you don't see that how we're doing at a macro level in terms of cleaning up the environment, when compared to other industrialized nations, is part of your mandate at this point?
Mr. Emmett: I don't see it as part of my work program at this point. I see it as something that we might think about, say, after the current... We're fairly clear on our work program for about the next two years. After that, as we adjust, it's something we may consider.
.0955
Mr. Knutson: You're clear on your work plan for the next two years?
Mr. Emmett: Generally, we have a work plan that's pretty well firm. We try to firm up as much as possible for a two-year period. It becomes a little bit more notional from year two to year five, but we do pencil things in. In the short term, I'm very much concerned about the sustainable development strategies and techniques for looking at them and assessing them, about development of measures to look at the performance of smaller units, as opposed to the economy as a whole. So those are my short-term priorities. In the longer term, and depending on our success in those areas, we might expand our horizons.
Mr. Knutson: Do you think the environment will be cleaner two years from now? Will we see any impact from your work? It just seems like we're really focused on measurement: we're really going to refine our measurement; we're going to refine our baseline; we're going to refine what the expectations are; we're going to make people say what they're going to do and then make sure they do what they said they would. I just wonder if the air will be any cleaner. Is that a fair question?
Mr. Emmett: Yes, it is a fair question, and I guess my answer would proceed from two premises. One is that one of the fundamental problems we're looking at is that we too frequently fail to do what we say we're going to do. The second premise is that what gets measured, gets done. To the extent that we measure more and measure better, it is going to get done more and get done better. I would hope that through that mechanism the environment will become better, that we will do much more of what we say we're going to do.
Mr. Knutson: I don't dispute that. I just wondered if there's a parallel to the micro level. Is there an easy macro issue that kind of screams out to get noticed but that unfortunately no one's particularly talking about? For example, I'm told by Americans that we're falling behind in terms of our air quality standards. Who in the federal government is going to stand up to say that Canada's doing a lousy job. I don't even know if it's true. Are we falling behind in terms of air quality standards?
When the department representatives come, they come and they tell us we're doing a good job internationally. When you press them on that point, it means we're doing a good job in terms of working with other partners or other countries to develop international agreements. It doesn't mean we're doing a good job in terms of cleaning up our environment faster than the rest of the world. It doesn't mean that; it means something else, although I'm not sure what.
I just wondered if you can do both.
Mr. Emmett: Mr. Chairman, could I ask my colleague Wayne to make a comment on that? He's done a great deal of work in these areas at the international level.
Mr. Wayne Cluskey (Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): There are two areas in which there is great activity. There is an organization composed of all or most of the auditors general of the world. I happen to be a member of an environmental working committee, and we are looking at those particular things. In fact, I'm working closely with my colleagues in Norway to develop a guide on how to audit international accords. That would mean the compliance of countries to the international accords, particularly environmental ones. We're encouraging the various auditors general to work together on this so that they're not doing their own countries in isolation from those other countries that are impacted.
Also, specifically on air quality, we have scheduled an audit for the year 2000. That's a little way off, but it is part of our work program. We are currently looking at ozone depletion. We are also starting an audit on climate change. So I think all these audits should, and probably will, draw out some of the concern with respect to what is being reported and what is not being reported and is therefore not being done in the quality of measurement.
So we are certainly covering those types of things in our future work program.
Mr. Knutson: When you say ``We're auditing air quality in the year 2000'', who is ``we''?
Mr. Cluskey: The Office of the Auditor General and the commissioner's office are part of it. Specifically, I'll be responsible for these audits if I'm still here. I head up the team that audits Environment Canada.
Mr. Knutson: That's three years away. When can we expect your report?
.1000
Mr. Cluskey: The report should be done in September, roughly, in the fall of the year 2000.
Mr. Knutson: Do you have an action plan?
Mr. Cluskey: We would present the results of our audit on it, which may include some evaluation of the kind of progress made or which may determine whether the environment department and other related departments do know in fact whether they have made progress with respect to cleaning up the air and improvement in air quality.
Mr. Knutson: Is how other countries are doing one of your baselines or indicators for comparison? Are we going to compare the air quality in Ontario with that of Michigan or of California?
Mr. Cluskey: Yes. With respect to ozone depletion, we've been in contact with about a dozen countries as to where they think they are in terms of quality. One of the problems is that the reporting and evaluation is in the very early stages in virtually every country that I am aware of.
So even to the extent the Americans are saying we're falling behind, maybe we are and maybe we aren't. I'm not sure they're in a position to indicate that quite as definitively as they may be suggesting, because we have very close contact with our colleagues in other countries in terms of both ministries of environment and the equivalent audit offices.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Emmett, when I read your report last night I read it with a sense of very pleasant surprise in regard to the way you have organized your plan of work. As Mr. Knutson just said, you are launched, it seems to me, in the right direction. I am sure your second report and particularly your third report will be loaded with some pretty substantial items for which the seeds are just being planted in this report.
I find your three themes as described in paragraph 39 dead on: the implementation gap, the lack of coordination and integration, and the inadequate performance review and information to Parliament. It seems to me that there you are on very solid ground and that you will have a tremendous amount of work to do in order to give parliamentarians the tools they need.
When it comes to the selection of the 24 departments and agencies, as outlined in point 29 of your presentation this morning, because of your limited resources you will of course have to decide which to give priority to.
If I may be so bold as to suggest priorities, I think there is a lot of important work to be carried out if you give priority to agriculture and natural resources and particularly to our policies in energy production and resource exploitation, with particular reference, of course, to the petroleum industry and mining. And in fisheries and oceans you would have quite a fertile field to look at.
I also wouldn't overlook the Department of Foreign Affairs, because somehow there are those who at times engage abroad in considerable policy declarations that increase rather than decrease the implementation gap you're worried about domestically. Therefore, the foreign affairs department is an important tool that needs attention.
In item 29 you mention the Department of Transport. If there is one department whose policies are consistently on a track that is unsustainable, that is the department.
You then mention National Defence and you probably have good reasons for that.
As for the finance department, of course you would want to explore with them the whole range of perverse subsidies that are unsustainable and that need to be highlighted. As you know, there is a commitment to do that in the red book. That commitment is still to be implemented. It is a major commitment, no doubt, and not an easy one, but the baseline study I'm referring to is one that needs to be visited if you really are seriously determined - and I'm sure you are - to go into the subject matter of being the Commissioner of Sustainable Development.
.1005
I'm leaving the environmental agenda out of this consideration, and I'll leave it to you to comment on whichever aspect you like when I've finished, because the environment agenda is within sustainable development. It is the old agenda. It is one that has its necessities. It has to be adequately looked at for the reasons already given by my colleagues, but it is the overarching sustainable development agenda that is your main mandate and that makes your life much more interesting and exciting. If it were only the environment agenda, we would be dealing with something that takes us back to Stockholm in 1972, and that would set the clock back. Your agenda is sustainable development, which is the agenda of the late 1980s and 1990s, and that is the one that will keep you young and vibrant, I'm sure.
Let us look at the main points for a moment. The main points are fine. I'm glad you have a reference to equity and fairness in paragraph 16. Unfortunately, that reference is missing in the main points. You have a definition of sustainable development, which is the conventional one, the one that we mostly understand and appreciate in North America, but equity and social issues are missing. It may be that in a future edition - next year, let's say - you may want to bring that dimension of sustainable development back into your main points, and as we all know, that is the dimension of the environment, the economy, and equity.
The importance of the social issues is enormous, particularly when you want to examine the impact of unemployment, for instance, on the fibre of society, which then brings us to the concept of sustainable development, and that is one that gives everybody a chance to participate in a dignified way in the development of the nation, of the community, and of the individual per se.
As you know, sustainable development is basically a rather revolutionary concept. It has been somehow underestimated, but I would place it at the level of Karl Marx. However, it is in competition with Marxism because it is the product of western society and it was born within a capitalistic system, in an understanding, though, that all forces of society have to be counterbalanced and countervailed. Therefore, social development is as important as environmental protection and economic development, and therefore the social component, particularly as it relates to unemployment, is one that I hope you can highlight in your future reports.
Moving on to the implementation gap, here you really put your finger on something very important. Mr. Adams or Mr. Knutson or both, I believe, already raised it with respect to our international commitments on carbon dioxide. I urge you to read the answer from the Minister of Natural Resources on that subject in Question Period on Monday.
We are heading for some major embarrassment here unless we modify our policy and reduce the gap. Somehow you will have to deal with that in your next report.
In fisheries, you may want to examine Canada's absence as a ratifier of the Law of the Sea. We were the architects of the Law of the Sea in the late 1970s or early 1980s. We signed it, but today we still have not ratified it. Some 67 nations have. That sets us back and it does add to that gap you are referring to in your report. That issue needs to be visited - whenever you are ready for it, of course - in the future.
.1010
I believe either you or Mr. Adams made reference to the question of accounting. Are we pricing our natural resources in the right way, in a manner that reflects the real value? Why is it that the stumpage fee in British Columbia is roughly $24 or so per cubic metre, while in neighbouring Alberta it drops to $2.50, and it's $2 across the rest of Canada. Are we giving away our forests in Alberta for nothing? How come? Also, is the stumpage fee charged in British Columbia an adequate one, considering the fact that this is a resource that, given the rate at which forests are being depleted across the globe, may be of a value a hundred years from now that is unlike anything we can even dream of? I don't know whether or not we can tackle that subject, but at least we can raise questions as to the pricing of our natural resources.
To conclude, then, by moving on quickly to your emphasis on good techniques of management, I hope you are right. I hope it will be enough to introduce good techniques of management. To me, it is more than a question of management techniques. It is really a profound change in attitudes and values that you are going to cope with, to struggle with. There are deeply seated interests that are driving policies not just federally, not just provincially, but also outside of our country. Sustainable development requires a change in an acceptance of the goals set by sustainable development policies. As I said, I hope you are right, but it is more than management techniques. It is what goes on in our heads in terms of what the horizon is for sustainability, and it is what goes into the sustainability equation.
That brings me back to the stumpage fees, for instance, or it brings us back to the policy that we have adopted through fiscal means of subsidizing the exploitation of the oil sands, the tar sands in Saskatchewan. Our system is impregnated with subsidies that are facilitating and depreciating the value of our resources. Our resources are not standing there on their own feet, so to say. We have a vast array of subsidies all over the place that need to be examined, questioned, and possibly modified, if not abolished. This is why we have these enormous difficulties in moving ahead on the agenda of the baseline study promised in the red book. I'm referring you to page 22 of the red book - no, sorry, page 22 is the GST.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: I think it is page 67 or so.
As you know, there was one effort made in 1994 by a task force, which danced around the question of the baseline study, however. They postponed it as something that ought to be done at a future date, never thinking that perhaps one day the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development might pick up the elements of unfinished business in that report, if you see what I mean.
.1015
I would also ask you if you wish to comment on item 33. What do you mean by ``concrete'' in your examination of what each department will produce? I'm referring to this morning's paper. It may be that I should try to understand it myself; nevertheless, it would be helpful if you could just comment on that.
I'm glad that in item 34 you do make a reference to integrating environmental, social, and economic considerations. That is the essence of what sustainable development is all about.
This has taken a bit too long, so you should feel free to choose whatever item you'd like to comment upon.
Mr. Emmett: Thank you very much for your comments and questions, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to your outline of priorities, I find a good deal to agree with. I think our priorities will probably be driven partially by practical concerns - what sustainable development strategies arrive when - and partly by the idea of grouping things thematically. Certainly, the grouping that emerges from your list is one that we thought of in looking forward to our work. One group of clear importance is a group that deals directly with resource concerns that have an impact on the environment - agriculture, fisheries, and natural resources.
A second group is made up of the broad, agenda-setting departments of government - the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs. My attitude toward Foreign Affairs is much the same as yours, Mr. Chairman. On the modern environmental agenda, where so many environmental problems are international in their nature, the Department of Foreign Affairs is a very important player. The way it thinks about its policy judgments internationally is very important to sustainable development and to the leadership role that Canada has enjoyed recently in a number of international fora.
Finally, we then have some of the large custodial departments, such as the Department of National Defence.
So I find myself broadly in agreement with that kind of grouping and ranking, and one of the things we do have to take into account is when these statements will actually come forward. I'm expecting some to be earlier than others. Hopefully a large number of departments will beat the December 15 deadline in order that we can give them adequate coverage.
With respect to some of the other points that you've made, Mr. Chairman, they're very good ones. With respect to equity, I agree absolutely. That is an omission in the report. With respect to your comment about sustainable development, I find myself in total agreement. I'm not exactly sure who coined the term ``sustainable development'', but my personal belief is that the world owes Dr. Bruntland an enormous debt of gratitude for popularizing the concept in Our Common Future.
With respect to international commitment, the gap is important in our work plan. I have looked at the statement that Minister McLellan made in the House the other day in response to a question. During the coming year, we will be undertaking a review of all our international commitments and how well we are doing.
With respect to fisheries, we are undertaking a look at the east coast fishery at the moment. There is a significant environmental component to that. I'm involved in that study, which is occurring in another part of the Auditor General's office.
With respect to accounting, again I find your points are well taken.
With respect to the broad question of whether or not we're pricing our natural resources in the right way with respect to the environment, the answer there is that we certainly are not. That comes back to the question of why we overuse and abuse environmental resources. That in turn comes back to the dictum I used earlier on: what gets measured, gets done. There is no basic incentive to measure impacts on atmosphere or often on water, and we do need much better ways of accounting for impact on those and the value of those impacts.
.1020
With respect to your comments on the emphasis on good techniques of management, I don't see that as the entire solution. I see it as a necessary but not sufficient condition.
There are a couple of things that hearten me. One is, when you talk about attitudes, although we're in no way experts on public opinion or polling, the work we have done indicates to us that Canadians seem to have a very good intuitive understanding of what is needed and a willingness to do a lot with respect to sustainable development and the environment. What I think they're looking for is an element of leadership and direction.
I'm also heartened by your comments on the long-term nature of the problem. Certainly these are things that have not developed overnight. They're the cumulative impacts of 400 years of industrialization, at a minimum. They're going to take a while to deal with, and that's why I keep referring to will, discipline, and patience. We do need to stick with problems over a very long period of time.
My colleague Wayne has referred to the issue of ozone that we're looking at. When I look at that, the remarkable fact that sticks out to me is how long we've had to stay with that issue to see it through to the state it's in today: the identification in the early 1970s, the science, the diplomacy, the policy development, the regulatory development, and the many phases of that issue that have to be managed. We've had to keep our eye on that particular ball over a period of several years and several changes of government. It requires a lot of ``stick-to-itivity''. It is a very long-term issue.
With respect to the use of the term ``concrete'' in the formal remarks I have tabled with the committee, my intention there is to convey to departments the expectation that vague statements of good intention are not enough. We do want to know what people are going to do. We do want to have measures so we can tell if they've done what they said they were going to do and ultimately report on how well they've progressed against those benchmarks.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Emmett.
[Translation]
Mr. Godin.
Mr. Godin: Mr. Emmett, as you know, I sit on this committee occasionally and I was unable to give your program or your report an in-depth reading like the other permanent members. So I will rely on the analysis you did at the start and I will go back to two topics, co-operation and petitions.
I'd like you to talk about co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government. The federal government is always telling us that the environment is an example of an area where federalism is flexible. Agreements and accords on harmonization are currently under discussion.
First of all, during your short time in office, have you detected a willingness on the part of the federal departments to try to reach an agreement with the provinces? In principle, what are the relationships between the federal government and the provincial governments?
My second question deals with petitions. We have received petitions on the sale of a CANDU reactor to China. Does your mandate enable you to receive this type of petition to protest certain government decisions, and if yes, how do you deal with them?
.1025
Mr. Emmett: On the question of the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments, I have not received a mandate to assess the environmental performance of the provinces with respect to sustainable development.
My mandate consists in pointing out any existing problems in coordinating efforts at the federal and provincial levels. I have not specifically examined issues relating to the harmonization agreements that are being negotiated by the federal and provincial governments. I have nothing pertinent to say on that.
As for petitions on CANDU reactors, my mandate does not involve assessing a minister's response to a petition. My role is simply to send it to a minister for his or her response and to indicate whether he or she has responded or not. I cannot comment on the minister's response.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin.
[English]
Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Emmett, our chair has probably forgotten this, but a number of years ago, when he was in another position, I heard him at a public meeting arguing about the limitations of any department of the environment to deal with the sorts of things you're designed to deal with.
His point then was that here's a department, no matter how keen, that has to deal with much larger departments, and although it could deal with some areas of its mandate, it would always be limited with respect to the very large ministries.
By the way, one of his points then had to do with cabinet documents. He said in fact it was as important or more important at that time to get environment, as we just used to call it in those days, recognized at the cabinet level as it was to have a ministry of the environment.
Your office is an example of these cross-ministry things. It's something different from the cabinet documents. But I've never seen a cabinet document. I understand they're very important.
First of all, is there a checklist against which, when something is submitted to cabinet, environmental and sustainable development issues have to be checked? Do you ask, ``Does this affect the environment?'' Does that still exist? And if it does, are these cabinet documents within your mandate?
Mr. Cluskey: The cabinet documents and anything that's going to cabinet are supposed to include considerations of environmental matters.
We do see cabinet documents; there is a process by which we can see them. A number of years ago, under the previous Auditor General, there was a very big court battle that went to the Supreme Court over that issue.
However, we cannot comment on a cabinet document or what's included, because that has become the policy of the government. We can look at the information that's put into the cabinet document and comment on whether or not that information is accurate, relevant, and so on, but we do not have a mandate to audit or comment upon cabinet documents. In fact, we are not even permitted to quote from a cabinet document. We couldn't say that a particular cabinet document said X, Y, and Z, and then say that the government didn't adhere to X, Y, and Z. That limitation has been indicated legally.
.1030
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, even though we don't get to see them, on virtually any cabinet document I would expect to find a box or something of that sort that mentions environment and sustainable development.
Mr. Cluskey: I'm not sure if there's a box. Because we don't get involved in the preparation of cabinet documents, I only see the ones that I've had to look at because they're related to the Department of Environment or things like the greening of government.
Of course they have dealt with environmental issues. I've not had the opportunity to look at the fisheries and oceans department or a department like that to see how well they might include environmental impacts in a cabinet document. All I know is that they're supposed to. I don't think there's a specific checklist they go through.
Mr. Adams: I know you can't simply change that situation you describe, but with respect to the office again, then, Mr. Emmett, would the documentation that precedes these cabinet documents be an important part of your examination of the departments and their strategic plans?
Mr. Emmett: You raise an excellent point. It relates to a comment that was once made by Jim MacNeill, a Canadian involved in the Brundtland Commission, who said, probably fairly facetiously, that arguably the worst thing to happen to the environment was the creation of ministries of the environment. I don't think that had to do with their capacity to perform or the quality of the people who work there, but it dealt with the natural reaction of other ministries to be able to say: ``That's a relief. Now we don't have to think about the environment. That's somebody else's job.''
I think one of the real changes that the new office brings to the formulation of policy in Ottawa is the requirement for each department to begin to think in a formal way about how environment and sustainable development fit into its mandate, how they are part of the business that it's in. The sustainable development strategies are a fundamental way of dealing with that sort of institutional reaction to the creation of ministries of sustainable development. I think those are the key documents that we need to focus on and that we need to develop good criteria for.
Mr. Adams: Let me say that in regard to the opinion expressed by Mr. MacNeill, our chair was articulating exactly that a number of years ago.
You mentioned this process and the strategic plans. In your report, you say, I think, that these 24 ministers have to come forward on December 15, 1997. Let me use this example. When royal commissions - and you can look at the history of royal commissions - don't appear to be very successful, when their reports come out and don't appear to have much effect, people often say the real influence of the royal commission was in the process, and that in fact it changed opinion or it focused opinion, or whatever. Sometimes that's true. It is the existence of the royal commission that draws things out of society. So when its final report comes out, it may not be as important as people think...that the report should solve a lot of problems. Do you understand the general point?
By the way, that is not to demean the reports that are going to come in on December 15. To me, ticking away there in those ministries now is a process of which you are a part.
Going back to the royal commission analogy, once they run - and it's very proper that governments can't be involved - they just go, and they have to do their thing. It's often quite sad if their report comes out and it's missed the mark.
Are you and your department involved in this process now so that we won't find that half of these reports are inadequate and that there really has not been much effect? I don't mean for you to interfere with it, but just to sort of monitor it so that some real activity is going on in those ministries at the present time.
Mr. Emmett: Can I respond with three points?
.1035
The first point, specifically in response to your question, is, yes, we are. It remains up to the department as to what is going to be in the report.
To the extent that they want to know what my expectations are, we have been working with Environment Canada. We've gone from coast to coast, speaking from Vancouver to Halifax, about the sustainable development plan and what we expect to see in that. So I don't think departments should be in the dark at all about what our expectations are.
Second, with respect to your analogy with royal commissions, I think it's a very good point that the process itself is an important one. But I think a little bit of a twist here is that, unlike a royal commission, I'm going to be here next year too. I can follow up and make an issue of the fact that something was not taken seriously or did not get done. So I do have the power to make something an ongoing issue and basically nag people about it, to be frank.
Third, the committee itself has a key role, because they can use these reports and my reports on sustainable development strategies to have sessions with departments to ask them about what kind of thinking has gone into them and what they think of my remarks and their remarks.
Mr. Adams: The last one is a very good point, because we may not be here next year.
Mr. Emmett, I think you are, actually, a process. We look forward to your reports. I'm sure they'll make a splash. We look forward to that. It's up to future standing committees like ours to do as much as they can about that.
It's not exactly that the reports will be secondary, but I'd like to think that a lot of your effectiveness will be in your role as a process, you and your colleagues, if you're effective all the time, day in and day out.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'd just like to turn your attention to page 14, exhibit 3, in which you outline the work plan. You're planning a complete audit of energy efficiency. Can you tell me what that means?
Mr. Emmett: Yes, sir. We are looking at specifically the energy efficiency programs of the Department of Natural Resources. That report is basically in the drafting stages and will be available in April. It has an April reporting date.
Mr. Knutson: Can I expect a discussion on a carbon tax in that report?
Mr. Emmett: No. It's an examination solely of the programs with respect to energy efficiency, energy conservation, and alternative energy that the Department of Natural Resources has in place.
Mr. Knutson: In a more general sense, do you think a carbon tax is relevant to a discussion of energy efficiency and all those things that go along with it, such as alternative energy? Do you think it's part of your mandate to maybe suggest that the NRC should have a discussion or consider a carbon tax?
Mr. Emmett: I don't believe I should be talking about tax policy, basically. I do believe I have a role in perhaps discussing the limitations imposed by the government's decision with respect to major policy on the development of programs and kind of situate the programs in the appropriate background. But certainly major questions of public policy, such as a carbon tax, to me, are appropriately left to people who are elected.
Mr. Knutson: That's us. So in your work in helping parliamentarians...
First of all, I'm curious that you see carbon tax as a discussion of tax policy. I don't know if you deal in pith and substance -
Mr. Emmett: It's tax policy.
Mr. Knutson: Or is it environmental policy? In substance, I would see it as an environmental policy more than an energy or tax policy.
.1040
Anyway, my main point is that it's not part of a discussion. At least from your point of view, you don't see it as part of a discussion on energy efficiency.
Mr. Emmett: Energy efficiency audits per se are audits of programs and whether the programs have achieved the objectives that were laid out for them.
I believe my colleague would like to add to that.
Mr. Cluskey: Here's one thing we can do. It doesn't matter whether it's tax policy or any kind of policy, we're supposed to stay away from that issue. But I think in one of the chapters I did about three or four years ago we do mention alternatives that a department - in this case Environment Canada - might look at in conjunction with other departments.
So as a possible alternative, we could ask whether you have looked at alternatives or say you should look at alternatives, such as carbon taxes and so on, without giving a position. For us to give a position and say there should be a carbon tax would be stepping into the domain of policy. So we would stop short of saying something as precise as that. But we could look for gaps in the alternatives that departments have considered in carrying out their responsibilities, environmental or otherwise. That's as close as we can come to taking any sort of a position.
Mr. Knutson: So maybe it will be in your report that they should look at a carbon test.
Mr. Cluskey: I'm not sure. I haven't seen the report. It's possible, but I'm not sure whether it will be or not.
Mr. Knutson: We in the committee have had evidence in front of us that if we're going to be serious about energy efficiency, we have to be serious about a carbon tax. The Department of Natural Resources is refusing to consider it as a legitimate policy alternative. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but we certainly have had testimony that made that point. I don't know if that will ever be audited. Maybe someday.
You're doing a complete study of environmental performance in the public and private sectors. A complete study is pretty broad, at least on the face of it. Maybe you can tell me what that means.
Mr. Emmett: Perhaps it means we're going to complete a study. But we are going to do a comprehensive study. We're going to devote a fair amount of effort to looking at the relationship... We'll be looking at what the public sector can learn from private sector performance and what the private sector can learn from public sector performance.
The basic point was made by Mr. Adams, I believe, that it's important for the federal government to have a leadership role in its environmental practices. I think the purpose of this study is to have a look at whether that is in fact true and whether there are gaps in the record.
More than that, it's not to make it sort of a ``we're doing well, but they're not'' study, but that we're doing well in some areas while they're doing well in other areas. Let's learn from each other.
Mr. Knutson: Okay, fair enough.
I want to raise the issue of cooperation as a paradigm. For most people, when they hear the word ``cooperation'', it strikes them as a really positive value and something that should be embraced. So it permeates a lot of reports involving stakeholders.
Let me just give you an alternative point of view to take away. You can throw it out if you want. Endangered species legislation might be a case in point. Say we come up with an idea that there are certain species of animals that are becoming extinct so we need to take pretty severe and emergency action to stop this.
We then launch into a consultation with the provinces, because they're stakeholders and we want to develop a cooperative framework for doing it. The provinces put their two cents in, but their point of view may not necessarily have the same level of urgency about protecting endangered species or the environment. There might be a tremendous amount of baggage or a sub-agenda of just promoting provincial jurisdiction. So they get their kick at the proposal, and everybody agrees we can deal with the area north of 60, but when you get below, into provincial lands, there's this whole big constitutional discussion. So what started off as a good idea has now been watered down and depleted by a constitutional jurisdiction.
Then you take your discussion and start to have interdepartmental discussions, because you believe in cooperation and joint consultations with stakeholders. So then you have Industry, NRCan, Agriculture, and Fisheries and Oceans all getting their kick at the legislation. They bring their worst fears to it and say they can't do this because it will have these consequences and this, and this, and this.
.1045
At the end of the day, at least from the perspective of many environmentalists, you end up with a fairly weak bill. But all the way through you've been really cooperative and consultative by involving all the stakeholders.
I just wonder if at some point cooperation becomes a code for trying to satisfy a lot of other agendas that really don't give the same level of priority to the environmental agenda that perhaps it should have? Do you see that as a possibility?
Mr. Emmett: That to me is a difficult question. It really involves making fairly tough judgments on a case-by-case basis. Certainly when I was in the policy business I found that multi-stakeholder consultations in the interdepartmental process of discussion and compromise can often produce a result that has what I might call an excessively brokered feel to it. There's too much bargaining and too little vision.
On the other hand, if you take a more solitary, visionary, clear-cut approach, you may end up with something that doesn't have that brokered feel to it, but it's kind of broadly unacceptable. It's kind of a good visionary piece of work, but at the end of the day it's not successful. People feel there's an inadequate level of ownership to it. Certainly those were judgment calls that I faced every day in my life as a person concerned with the development of policy.
I don't think there is any kind of clear-cut, overall answer to it but certainly it can happen.
Mr. Knutson: I'm not expecting one. I just wanted to see whether you were aware of the issue -
Mr. Emmett: Yes, very much so.
Mr. Knutson: - and whether that will be part of your mindset when we're auditing people to perform to a certain standard.
Mr. Emmett: Certainly I'm very much aware of it. It's something I've experienced.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.
Before concluding, I have a few observations, for what they are worth. As you know, there are two new federal departments that have in their ministerial mandate the pursuit of sustainable development. One is Industry Canada, as you know, and the other is Natural Resources. There was intensive negotiation at the last minute on how to improve the definition of that mandate and how high this would rank in the duties of the respective minister.
In the case of Natural Resources, the mandate there is a bit foggy, so to speak, but it is strong enough that it would allow following up the question by Mr. Knutson on carbon taxes, which is to examine one day - I don't know when the appropriate time will come - whether the departmental plan you will be examining does take into account the mandate given to the minister to pursue sustainable development or not.
In that sense then perhaps - I'm not sure, but perhaps - you could go back to the department in some instances or situations and raise the question: are you sure your plan reflects the ministerial mandate to pursue sustainable development as it is in the legislation? It would not be an easy discussion, of course, but there may be times when you may want and need to invoke that particular ministerial mandate if you feel the report submitted by that department really forgot about sustainable development. As to whether or not you could stretch it as far as to also include an examination of the carbon tax, I don't know. I'll leave that to your imagination.
.1050
Sustainability in fisheries is another area that I would like to comment on briefly, because it is an extremely difficult one and because it points to another gap - a political gap.
You will recall that in February 1990, I believe, Memorial University's Leslie Harris produced his little report on the cod. It was a very short one. It was a textbook kind of report in which he alerted the government to the mortality in that fishery, of that particular species, and urged a moratorium. It took exactly two and a half years - until July 1992 - before the moratorium was invoked. That was a gap of a political nature, and it is a textbook kind of historical happening that you may want to at least be aware of - or you may want to study it - for the purpose of understanding what happens when the scientific community speaks and the political community acts. The gap between the two can be dangerous, yet it needs to be addressed to see whether or not there are ways of shortening it. Also, I can fully understand that your role is not to deal with political inertia; nevertheless, it is there.
Moving on quickly to conclude on two more small items, under item 45 of your report you indicate that 24 departments will table their sustainable development strategies in the House of Commons. How many departments will you be able to accommodate between December 15, 1997, and March 1998 in your report? There is evidently only time for a few, and that is going to pose an administrative problem for you, if not a conceptual one.
In reading item 56, I notice that under the cases of concern, you listed a number of them. There is one that is missing, however, and that is forests. In terms of federal-provincial relations, while it may be a delicate one, we can assure you that it is nevertheless a key issue of concern to Canadians in many parts of the country. It may be that you may want to insert it or examine it for insertion in your next report.
Finally, it would be helpful to all members of the committee if you could let us have an organizational chart that shows us how many of you there are and who does what. When necessary, we would then know how to reach you without wasting your time by calling the wrong person. It will also give us an indication as to how much you can cope with because of the limited budget allocation. At future meetings of this committee or at estimates, of course, we would welcome any intervention on your part that indicates to us that the budgetary allocation is not adequate to perform such an enormous task.
Mr. Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to your comment on the 24 departments, that is a problem. We will probably do 12 one year and 12 the next. We will also probably delay a reporting time for the green report from March of next year to May of next year in order to give us the time to do that. That's something that's very much on our minds, so I would hope that a number of these strategies are available well before December 15. I know many departments are working hard at them. I think it's very much in their interest and our interest that we have strategies before us as soon as possible in order that we can begin to deal with them.
With respect to your key issues on forests, I take your point. Thank you.
With respect to the organization chart, we'd be glad to do that.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Knutson.
.1055
Mr. Knutson: I know we're getting close to the end, but the chairman's comments triggered another question. In your audits for either ozone depletion or energy efficiency, when you're looking at NRCan, will you be looking at the issue of voluntary compliance by industry and at the whole controversy surrounding it?
Apparently, industry has submitted plans. Some people think the plans have substance. Some people think they're not very substantive around the issues of reductions in greenhouse gasses, ozone depletion, and energy efficiency. Would you be looking underneath those plans to tell us whether voluntary compliance is working or not? Is that part of the 1997-98 work plan?
Mr. Emmett: Yes, we will be having a very detailed look at the climate change program. The voluntary challenge and registry is a key in the program of achieving our climate change goals. It will be a subject of considerable attention and examination.
Mr. Knutson: Assuming I'm back, would you answer for me - or whoever sits in this chair - the question of whether or not voluntary compliance is working?
Mr. Emmett: I think the fundamental question is whether or not the programs in place are adequate to do what we said we were going to do. We need to look at a voluntary challenge and registry system to see how they fit into that. To answer that question, yes.
Mr. Knutson: I'll look forward to that.
The Chairman: Thank you.
That brings us to a conclusion. We thank you very much, we wish you well, and we look forward to your next report. If you wish to come forward in terms of any budgetary matters, we remain available between now and the next calendar date that you choose.
[Translation]
I would like to thank Mr. Godin.
[English]
I also thank Mr. Knutson as well.
This meeting is adjourned.