ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 12, 2001

• 0912

[Translation]

The Chair (The Honourable Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good day, everyone. Before introducing today's witness, I want to make a few comments about our work.

[English]

Dr. Schindler's paper is one that I would recommend to you as an important document. I briefly touched upon it at the last meeting. It has been distributed in a translated form. As you know, Dr. Schindler is a renowned international authority in the field of water, and his paper contains a number of points that in a way summarize the work we have done in the last three months.

Then we have a paper produced by Tim Williams, which is in your file. It's dated May 25. He deals with the difficult issue of a definition of “species”. It is a very short paper. It is worth studying for those of you who want to be familiar with the whole concept of species in the law. I want to thank Mr. Williams for that.

In the fall we will start with amendments, and the minister will appear before the committee. It might be advisable for the committee members to let the minister know in which direction the committee would wish to move with amendments, rather than leaving them to the last moment. An amendment is an important political signal, and if it is given early it has a better chance of being heard than when it is given at the last moment. But I leave that to your individual political judgment.

• 0915

With that in mind, arrangements have been made so that during the summer members of the committee can draft and forward amendments of their choice. This is the whole purpose of the notice you have received. In that notice you will find the names of the legislative counsel, Mr. Amadou John, and the legislative clerk, Mr. Marc Toupin, and their phone numbers. They would be the ones from whom you can expect assistance in drafting an amendment. Before that you may want to have a chat with our researchers, and that is why their names are in the following paragraph. You may want to refresh your memory on some detail. So the sequence might be step number one, the researchers, and step number two, the legislative counsel. Then to coordinate it and put it all together is our clerk, who is available for any other type of inquiry you might have. This notice from Mr. Morawski is intended as a guide for the summer.

There is no specific deadline for amendments, but it certainly would be very helpful and preferable if amendments were to come in, let's say, by the end of July. There is no specific deadline that is firm. As I said earlier, it is only a process that is being developed based on past experience with other bills in order to enhance the effectiveness of amendments that may emanate from this committee and so that you can make the best use of your time. It's as simple as that.

Are there any questions or comments on what has transpired so far?

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): What's the potential timeline, as you see it, for the fall?

The Chair: I have no idea. It will depend on the number of amendments. It will probably take a number of weeks, but it will depend on the productivity or the inclination of committee members in producing amendments. Hopefully, we will finish in the fall, but it's very hard to predict.

If there are no further questions, we will proceed and welcome our witness. We are very fortunate and honoured to have Madame Gélinas, the new commissioner, as our witness. Her curriculum vitae is quite interesting because of her experience both at the provincial level in the field of environmental impact assessment and at the federal level as a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Therefore, she brings a broad experience to her new assignment.

As you know, she was approved in her new position only a few months ago, or is it already a year? We will find out soon. We know that she intends to produce a report in the fall.

Her presence here today is the result of her request, because she would like to become acquainted with the committee members and to develop a working relationship with us.

With that in mind and without any further ado, on your behalf I would like to welcome Madame Gélinas to the committee and invite her to proceed.

• 0920

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you, firstly, for the invitation; it is much appreciated.

This is my first parliamentary hearing as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and I am very pleased to be here.

Since I will be submitting both my annual report and sustainable development strategies to this committee, it seemed appropriate, and a privilege, to have this first meeting with you before submitting my report, as the Chairman mentioned, next fall.

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Wayne Cluskey, who has served for close to 25 years in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Mr. Cluskey has been involved in all of the environmental audits the Office and Commissioner's team have performed over the years.

Briefly, by way of introduction,

[English]

I'm a geographer and an environmentalist by training. I've spent my whole career in the environmental field. As Mr. Caccia said, I was commissioner of environment at the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement in Quebec for ten years, where I chaired public inquiries. In parallel, I also spent five years as a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which is an advisory body to the PMO. Before becoming commissioner, I was involved in both the private and public sector on the climate change issue.

In my day-to-day life I try to lead by example. I compost, I do organic gardening, I use transit, I recycle, and I try to educate my children so that they have enormous respect for the environment. In my professional life I try to communicate my passion for the environment. Maybe I will be too shy this morning to share that passion, but don't worry, it will come pretty fast.

[Translation]

Before presenting to you my objectives and activities, and the priorities and strategies of my group, I would with your permission like to pay tribute to my predecessors, Brian Emmett and Richard Smith, who accomplished extraordinary work over the past five years. They first audited and tabled the first generation of sustainable development strategies. They performed more than 25 environmental audits and studies on various matters. I will name but a few: smog, biodiversity, climate change, toxic chemicals and waste, and environmental agreements; I must also mention the excellent team they put together as well as the practices and methods they developed. Thus, I have a solid foundation on which to build and take over the work, and I wish to thank them publicly this morning.

There are three topics I would like to broach with you this morning: firstly, the priorities and changes in approach which I am advocating; the 2001 report which will be tabled next October; and planning, that is to say, that which I wish to launch in 2002 and in subsequent years.

I have five priorities: first, increasing the impact of our work through improved communication with Canadians; placing greater emphasis on the importance and results of sustainable development strategies put in place by departments; enhancing the follow-up given to our recommendations; bringing about greater integration of environmental issues in the work done by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

On this last point I would like to mention that as a group we benefit enormously from the administrative, methodological, and indeed, moral support of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada; we also benefit from the immense credibility and respect which this office enjoys. In turn—it is not a one-way street—we aim to enhance the extent to which environmental and sustainable development concerns are taken into account in the other practices and audits performed by the office.

[English]

Perhaps I can say a few words about the four others, starting with one of my priorities, which is to improve communication with Canadians. I would like to increase the impact of our work; raise the profile of the commissioner, since we are not well known in this country and abroad; and speak to Canadians and get their attention.

The audience includes parliamentary committees. This committee is our natural client, but we need to build other bridges as well with the media, who can make a real difference in making the commissioner's office better known, and also departments, where we have to build a better relationship. It is important that our reports be viewed as the beginning of a process, not as the end. NGOs, Canadians, and parliamentarians should take them as starting points from which to carry on.

• 0925

As you know, the petition process was part and parcel of the changes in the AG Act that created my position. We receive and forward petitions from Canadians who have concerns about environmental and sustainable development issues. I forward these petitions to federal departments and agencies and ensure that they are responded to. I also report on petitions in my annual report to the House of Commons.

The general idea behind a petition is to provide a means whereby Canadians who have concerns about government management of a particular environmental issue can require government to explain itself. So far, however, the take-up on this process has been underwhelming. Since we began four and a half years ago, we have received just 27 petitions.

I suspect few of your constituents are aware of the right to petition, and I believe we should do more to help make them aware of this tool. Properly used, it can play a more useful role in the accountability relationship between citizens and the federal departments than it has to date.

[Translation]

When I arrived, I personally launched a consultation process with departments and petitioners in order to get to know their perspectives on how to improve the petition process in the course of the next few months; as a result of this, certain changes will be made to current practices. I also intend to improve the manner in which we report on petitions to Parliament, and I will see whether some of these petitions should have a bearing on audit notes, and even on the areas we choose to examine.

[English]

Let's talk now about sustainable development strategies and results. If properly conceived and implemented, the SD strategies are potentially powerful management tools for bringing us, as a country and as the federal government, closer to truly sustainable development. Up to now we have been reviewing these strategies and suggesting ways in which they can be improved. It is essential that SD strategies lead to discernible improvements to the well-being—economic, social, and environmental—of all Canadians, including future Canadians.

The question is, are they working and making a difference? Are they linked to results, and taken together are they more or less than the sum of the parts? What is being done well? What needs significant improvement? Your committee will also want to look at SD strategies, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you some of my thoughts on that matter. We need to know if they are consistent with the overall department plans and performance. We also need to have confidence that the information in the strategy is fair and reliable. This is especially important as departments do more reporting on their SD progress. This is why I intend to audit not just what the departments say they will do or have done, but what I find they actually have done.

[Translation]

In other words, I want to leave the beaten path of the first generation of sustainable development strategies, where emphasis was placed on process. For instance, we made sure that departments had put in place environmental management systems. We must go beyond that and be able to measure concrete results achieved by departments, now that they have put in place their sustainable development strategies.

[English]

With respect to reporting and follow-up, we hope the fall tabling will work better for your committee so that you can look at our report and hold hearings, if appropriate, without summer intervening. Follow-up is essential. The key is to pay both periodic and ongoing attention to the issues we think must be addressed until they are addressed.

Your committee could be of enormous assistance in this regard. As you know, AG reports are referred to the public accounts committee. My reports are referred to your committee.

• 0930

The public accounts committee has a practice that helps get action on Auditor General audits and studies. For chapters on which the PAC has a hearing, they table a report in the House. The standing orders require the minister to respond within 150 days. For chapters that are not heard, the committee usually writes the relevant deputy ministers before Parliament adjourns and asks them to provide responses within about 60 days on departmental plans for implementing the Auditor General's recommendations. This gives the committee an opportunity to call a hearing if the response is unsatisfactory. Both of these practices are very useful for holding departments' feet to the fire.

Your committee may wish to consider whether it would be desirable to adopt a similar practice with respect to the chapter on my report.

I would like now to turn from general thoughts about approaches to my upcoming report in the fall.

The 2001 report will have three main parts. The first one will look at the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River basin. The second part will address managing for sustainable development. The third one will be a follow-up on audits on energy efficiency and climate change.

A large part of my October report, representing more than half of the work my office has done over the last year and a half, will be the result of an audit. We're really talking here about a book about selected environmental and sustainable development issues in a single region—the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River basin.

This region is home to over 14 million Canadians and an even larger number of Americans. The river, lakes, and streams hold almost 20% of the world's fresh water. In the surrounding area is a very high percentage of Canada's urban areas as well as manufacturing and industrial activity.

[Translation]

Nearly $12 billion of agricultural products from the Basin contribute to feeding Canadians overall. If the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin is not healthy, the vast majority of Canadians cannot be healthy.

[English]

This region is not only important in its own right; it also embodies many cutting-edge issues that the federal government needs to come to grips with if it is to be successful in meeting the challenges of sustainable development, wherever they may be. It is a region where there are enormous environmental stresses. It is a region where, added to ecosystem complexity, is the complexity of governance arrangements involving many kinds of institutions—municipalities on both sides of the border, states and provinces, our federal government, the U.S. federal government—and the less formal arrangement of residents, businesses, scientists, and others.

[Translation]

The environmental audit of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin concentrates on five main subject areas: water management, from the perspective of quality and quantity; fisheries; agriculture; species and space at risk; ecosystem initiatives. Each of these areas involves issues of vital importance to the future health of the Basin and the Canadians who live there. Important questions arise, and we have addressed some of them in our audit.

[English]

A fundamental question is what is known about the state of the basin? Do we have sufficient scientific monitoring and research in place to know whether things are getting better or worse? How are we doing with respect to such issues as species at risk, wetlands, chemical and biological pollution, drinking water, manure, soil erosion, fish habitat, and invasive aquatic species?

• 0935

A second question is what is the federal government's role, and how well is it performing its role?

[Translation]

In other words, are government commitments respected and are government priorities being put forward?

Are the respective roles and responsibilities of the many jurisdictions and players involved in the Basin clear?

Are partnerships being properly managed and supported?

What does the future hold?

What pressures will the Basin face?

Those are some of the questions we are asking ourselves.

[English]

These are absolutely fundamental questions about matters that can affect the lives of all Canadians. I look forward to discussing with you our conclusion when the report is tabled this fall.

A second part of my report this fall will be a suite of chapters on managing for sustainable development. We have been asking questions—for instance, do departments have systems in place to manage their environmental and sustainable development agendas, and are they following the rules for adequate reporting to Parliament?

In the chapter on assessing the first sustainable development strategies, we ask whether departments knew where they had been in order to know where they are going. We ask whether departments have developed a systematic approach to continually improving.

In the chapter on integrating the social dimension, we review current thinking on the social dimension of sustainable development. What does it mean, and how does social dimension relate to other dimensions of sustainable development?

Finally, the third part consists of a follow-up of the audit on climate change and energy efficiency. The audit on climate change noted the need for a coordinated approach, applicable to the entire range of federal activities, and rethinking the federal climate change strategy. Both audits noted a need for reporting on specific targets and outcomes against which government can measure progress. Follow-up will report on how much progress we have observed on these matters.

[Translation]

The 2002 report will give me the opportunity of reviewing Canada's progress during the past decade.

Next summer, a similar exercise will take place at the international level. We will be taking stock of progress made on commitments made at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

I thus intend to devote considerable energy to examining progress in several key areas and to issues we have broached and worked on in the past. I'm thinking in particular of issues such as smog and toxic substances, contaminated sites and hazardous wastes.

Progress, or the lack of it in these key areas, will be a strong indicator of the government's will to proceed with sustainable development.

As I also mentioned, we will be devoting particular attention to the second generation of SD strategies, which were tabled in the House of Commons last February.

[English]

International involvement is also important. I hope we will be collaborating with the General Accounting Office in the U.S. on cross-border issues of mutual interest. We are working with the offices of other auditors general around the world on matters of common interest to promote environmental auditing, including providing training for countries who have little experience in this area.

In 2002 we will be replacing the Dutch as chair of the international working group on environmental auditing of INTOSAI, the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions.

[Translation]

The following are some possible areas of interest which may be broached in the 2003 and subsequent years' reports: economy and trade and the environment, natural resources, management tools, and environmental health.

• 0940

[English]

The issue is what we can audit that will make a difference to Canadians. The number of potential areas of interest is vast. For example, if we look through an economic lens, there are many subjects to choose from, including an examination of how well or poorly Canada uses its fiscal and other available economic instruments to achieve environmental goals. If we look at natural resources, we can look at federal energy policy, pollution in international waters, or issues related to biodiversity, just to name three. If we do audits focused on management tools, we can examine compliance and enforcement, environmental assessment, and the harmonization accords, among others. If we examine environmental health issues, we could look at aspects of acid rain, cross-border air pollution, the protection and monitoring of drinking water, radioactive waste, children's health, agriculture, and so forth.

The question is, how should we make the choices? There are several criteria we are likely to use, and you may wish to suggest others.

[Translation]

What it boils down to for me is, is the issue important to Canadians? Are they concerned by these matters? Otherwise, should they be concerned? Of course, the issues must fall under my mandate and I must have the necessary resources and skills to undertake the task.

[English]

In conclusion, I just want to make two final points. The first is that I am well aware of the metaphor that sustainable development is a journey. That is fine, so long as we're not just taking a pleasant Sunday drive in the country but rather have a reasonable idea of where the road is leading, whether we are going in the right direction, and whether we are going above or below the speed limit. This is as true for my work as commissioner as for the federal departments we have been asked to report on.

[Translation]

I would like to conclude by restating the importance of your committee to our work. I believe your committee and I can and should play mutually supportive roles in discharging our respective mandates and thus pave the way for sustainable development in Canada.

I have presented my work plan for the next few years to you. You have the opportunity of influencing my choices, and I look forward very much to your comments and suggestions.

In my family, we observe an old tradition. When we go somewhere for the first time, we make a wish. If I may, with your permission, make one this morning, I would say that I hope that this meeting marks the beginning of a fruitful co-operation.

[English]

In that spirit I hope I will be able to meet with each of you individually, perhaps after the summer recess if your schedule permits.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. It's certainly a golden opportunity for us, and we could have a very exciting couple of hours, if the room is available until then.

Let's start with a good round of comments, questions, or suggestions, as suggested by Madame Gélinas, and then hopefully we can have a second round. We'll start with Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Bigras, Mr. Comartin, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Reed, Madam Redman, Madam Carroll, and Madame Scherrer.

Mr. Mills, four minutes.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

I'd like to welcome you on behalf of the committee. I hope we'll have lots of opportunities to discuss your report and all of the work to make Canada a better place environmentally.

Communication, which you just touched on, is a real problem. We're dealing with Bill C-5 right now, the Species at Risk Act. One of my biggest concerns has been and is how we communicate that to the guy on the street, so to speak, those farmers or ranchers who think they know what it means but who really don't understand. They support it but they don't support it. They're worried about it. It's intimidating.

• 0945

How would you see us getting communication working for issues like that? There are lots of other ones, such as the Great Lakes, where we need to communicate with the guy on the street. How do we improve that?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: First of all, I will say that we should deal more with the media. We have to find all the opportunities we can to communicate with them first so that they will provide a good way for us to send a message to Canadians.

I will speak for myself, but I think this applies to you too. We have to go out to universities and schools. We have to attend as many conferences as we can to talk about what we're doing and about our key findings. Ottawa is a very large city in one way, but it's a very small city in another way. We are not here just to communicate with people from Ottawa; we are here to communicate with people across the country. We have to travel. We have to go and talk to these people. There's no silver bullet to better communication. Also, that will help us get better known. I think it's true for me and for you too. Then people will become more interested in knowing what we are doing. They will go on the web. They will ask us more often to give speeches and those kinds of things. I think there is really no other way to communicate. We have to go out.

Mr. Bob Mills: I often refer to Ottawa as planet Ottawa. For many people where I come from that's exactly what it is. It has its own orbit and its own place. We all know what's happening here, but I really question how many other Canadians do.

You mentioned that you've received 27 petitions. To us as parliamentarians petitions are something we take to the House, where we make a one-minute statement on them. A few months later we get an answer along the lines of it has been put on the shelf, and that's the end of it. You never see any results coming from a petition. I now tell people to write a letter. A letter is worth more than a petition. If a minister gets a hundred letters, that's a stack, whereas if he gets a thousand names on a petition, I don't know if a minister even sees those petitions. So I think there's frustration out there on the part of people with petitions. I don't know if you agree with that. I think that if you don't see something happening, you're not going to do it.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: You give me a very good opportunity to talk about the petition process. When I was an outsider, I thought that for the petition process we needed to have a couple of hundred or a thousand signatures below a request. That is not the petition process used in my office. Essentially, it is a letter. It is a letter that is sent to the Auditor General, but I take care of it. It's a simple letter that any citizen can send to me. When I receive the petition, I make sure that the department or departments give a proper response to it. The act clearly mentions the timeframe in which the departments have to answer.

In the past this information was not really in the public domain, even though it was public information. In the future we will make sure that all the petitions and the answers will be available to all Canadians on the web. I will make sure that every time I have an opportunity to talk to Canadians about petitions, I will do so. I hope that when I appear before you next year I will be able to tell you that this year we received a hundred petitions. It's a very useful tool.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Gélinas, like my colleagues, I want to welcome you to the committee. I'm happy that you have been appointed to this position, since you occupied similar functions within Quebec government environmental bodies, and that will allow you to raise the awareness of the federal government, among others, with regard to Quebec's environmental audit process.

• 0950

Here is my first question: according to the document you have presented, you seem to want to examine the role the federal government could play in the future. If we look at one of your transparencies, number 13, it discusses the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River Basin. You wonder what role the federal government plays and if it plays it in a satisfactory manner. I would like you to tell us, without divulging the content of the report you are to submit next autumn, what you feel the federal government's role could be in managing the Great Lakes Basin. Could you talk to us about some avenues or possible solutions that might be considered in your report?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I can't give you details concerning aspects or results of environmental audits, but on the topic of the roles and responsibilities of the federal government, I refer you to the fisheries as an example. The Department of Fisheries has responsibilities related to fresh water management. One of the points we have examined is whether or not the department discharges the roles and responsibilities entrusted to it properly.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Do you think the federal government could play a new role? The Supreme Court has validated a certain number of the federal government's areas of responsibility. I'm thinking in particular of the Hydro-Québec 1998 decision, which, if I am not mistaken, clarified a certain number of the federal government's roles. Could the report you will be tabling clarify things in a similar way concerning the St. Lawrence Basin management? Will you be using all of the case law? Will you be discussing the new roles the federal government is attempting to play, through, for instance, its Endangered Species Act, in order to protect endangered species in the St. Lawrence?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I will in my report discuss the way in which the government discharges—or does not—its responsibilities. It will be up to you to judge whether the roles and responsibilities of the various departments should be reviewed and modified.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: And what basis will you be using to determine what those roles could arise from? Existing laws, or case law?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Existing laws, and the regulatory obligations of those departments.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like to ask you one last, brief question. Among other things, you will be examining a certain number of sectors that concern the St. Lawrence Basin: the quality and quantity of water, fisheries and agriculture. Do you intend to analyze the environmental impact of dredging operations in the St. Lawrence? The federal government spends several tens of millions of dollars, and has for years, on dredging the St. Lawrence. I don't see any mention of that in your list.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Indeed, that aspect is only covered indirectly under the heading of water quality.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Will you discuss it in your fall report?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. Dredging activities are not included in the report. That is not one of the aspects we have studied.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Very well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame Gélinas, I'm not sure this is your area, so I guess that's really why I'm asking.

A week and a half to two weeks ago the finance minister announced that subsequently he would be using an environmental assessment to determine the state of the economy of Canada—not just the traditional financial ones. I have really two questions. Was your office involved in developing this methodology? Secondly, is your office going to have involvement in assessing the effectiveness of both that methodology and the impact of the economy on the environment or vice versa?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I guess you are referring to the presentation the Minister of Finance made in Toronto, talking about indicators?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Right.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We won't be involved in the development of the indicators. On the other hand, as soon as this country ha sustainable development indicators, we will be more than happy to look at it and figure out if we're making progress in this area.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So your office has not been consulted about developing those indicators?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. So far we haven't been asked to be involved in that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's all I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

The next one will be Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

• 0955

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our committee. I'm really pleased you're here, and I look forward to future opportunities like this today.

When your office was beginning its discussion looking at the Great Lakes basin and St. Lawrence study, I had spoken with a couple of the representatives and had advocated that Lake Simcoe, because it is also part of the Great Lakes basin, be included in the study. But it's my understanding that Lake Simcoe has not been included. I was just wondering if you could tell me why that decision was made.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Unfortunately, I cannot answer that specific question. I can say though that no specific industry was looked at, but globally we looked at the industrial pollution and the impact on the basin. As you can imagine, covering such a large region made it quite difficult to look at a specific industry. I heard a little bit about that story with respect to Simcoe, but nothing specific in our report will address that issue.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, I wasn't speaking about a particular industry.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Simcoe?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Lake Simcoe.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Oh, sorry.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I wanted Lake Simcoe included within the Great Lakes basin study. I was just wondering why Lake Simcoe wasn't included with that.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I cannot answer that question, but if you want, John Reed, who is responsible for this audit, can give you details on it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you. Is he able to come to the table?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I'm sorry. We were also dealing with a petition that addressed a problem with a specific industry and I thought you were referring to that one.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Oh, I see. Not a problem.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Can I introduce you to John Reed. He is the principal responsible for the audit on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River basin.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. John W. Reed (Principal, Office of the Environment Audit Team, Office of the Auditor General): Thank you. Good morning.

I remember well the discussion we had. It covered quite a range of issues, and quite a few of the ones we spoke about are in the report. We found that on the Great Lakes themselves, the federal mandate is clear and they have a presence and a reason to be there. As we moved off the lakes and the transboundary portion, the federal mandate gets smaller and smaller. Because of our mandate and our requirement to focus on federal programming, we just didn't have a lot to look at. That's the scoping decision that led to say “what can we say about this region” that had a clear federal hook. There wasn't much there.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I understand. With Lake Simcoe there are water management issues that are conducted by the local conservation authority, and the conservation authority is a creature of the province. Is that correct?

Mr. John Reed: Yes. There is in the report—and it isn't specific to Simcoe—a discussion about the fisheries management, habitat protection, and the role and relationship the federal government has with conservation authorities.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So you felt you wouldn't include Lake Simcoe because there wasn't a real federal hook involved with Lake Simcoe itself.

Mr. John Reed: Primarily, yes. In the whole region, the split between the federal and provincial boundaries was a confounding issue right through the thing, but as you got off the lakes themselves, the real hook to be there isn't there. It's an issue we raised. I think as Madame Gélinas said in response to the other question, it does raise “a what should be the role” question that we as auditors don't try to answer.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

Very briefly, I was wondering if Oakridges moraine was included with this study.

Mr. John Reed: Again, not specifically as a piece of territory, but it's within the scope of the audit.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So there will be general discussions around different issues that do affect the moraine then.

Mr. John Reed: Well, very general, in the sense of land development, pressures of population growth, but nothing that's specific to the moraine.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reed, please.

• 1000

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've taken on a tremendous challenge here, I can see, and it's so broad. I'm glad it's your problem and not mine. And I'm very glad you have expressed this desire to meet with individual members in the fall to expand our approaches.

I'd like to zero in on just one specific area, and that is energy. Not quite half of the energy consumed in Canada is consumed by 14 million of us, and relative to the rest of the country, we're in a relatively confined space. That means we probably impact more in this specific area than other Canadians. I'm wondering if the scope of the study will include subject areas like our modes of travel, for instance, or the impact of using the lakes as heat sinks for power generation. Can it include any kind of commentary on municipal planning, where municipalities historically have subjected themselves to urban sprawl without really addressing the negative side of that growth? Will it include any kind of study on supply management versus demand management for energy?

Will you be able to comment on federal-provincial relations, inasmuch as a great deal of the subject of energy utilization and energy creation is the purview of the provinces and there are times when the federal government feels hamstrung? I'll give you just one brief example. The federal government signed memoranda of understanding with all the provinces on the purchase of green energy. The Province of Ontario has not ratified it, but they signed the memorandum in 1996. It's been five years and nothing has happened. Is there going to be any area of comment on subjects like that?

The Chair: We should try to organize a three-day conference to answer some of these questions, but let's see how you handle them.

Mr. Julian Reed: I realize the broadness of this.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: But Mr. Chairman, I expect to stay in Ottawa for a couple of years, so I will have the chance to look at some of the issues the member has raised.

I have to tell you that in the future we will pay attention to the energy issue. There's no doubt in my mind.

With respect to federal-provincial relationships, you know better than I that this is a touchy issue. One of the ways we can look at that in the future is to do a joint audit with the province, and we may want to explore that. I will get back to you in a couple of months from now and let you know what we have been able...not to achieve but to start with.

Considering some of the other issues you raised, we will have a couple of options to look at those things. You're addressing the travel issue. As you know, the Department of Transport has produced a sustainable development strategy, and it will be quite interesting to figure out what they intend to do to get on the sustainable path with respect to transportation. We will also have an opportunity to look at the infrastructure program, if we want to, and look at green investment, and figure out within the municipalities what are the priorities. If the federal government has set up priorities, also make sure the investments are respecting this principle of sustainable development. So, yes, in the future we will be able to address some of these issues. We touched on it a little bit on the Great Lakes but in very general terms.

• 1005

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: A second round, if you like.

[Translation]

Ms. Redman, please.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I'll add my voice in saying welcome.

Do all of your recommendations go either to the Minister of Environment or to departments of the government, or do you make recommendations to either other levels of government or other bodies?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. We make recommendations to the federal government. We can have broad recommendations that are addressed to the government, but we tend to have specific recommendations for each of all of the departments.

Mrs. Karen Redman: You've mentioned communication, and certainly it's a theme we've dealt with at this committee, and I've dealt with it on other committees. Will your recommendations include anything that would have to do with a communications plan? Are you as specific as recommending timelines, or is it more of a general kind of recommendation you would be tabling?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. From past experience, I have learned that general recommendations are very difficult to follow up. We'll try to have very specific recommendations that we can measure. We will try to avoid, as much as we can, general recommendations with timelines...specific departments to which they are addressed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I liked your analogy of driving a car and making sure you knew where the destination was, and indeed that we were going the right speed limit. What kind of mechanism is in place to measure the efficiency of the commission itself?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: My group?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We have to do as others and do a report on plans and priorities. We also have our own sustainable development strategy, which we produce on a voluntary basis. I have to say that we are, like other departments, improving in the area of sustainable development even if we are working very hard on it. So we have the usual process that other departments would use to report on their strategies and their mechanisms.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You mentioned your role internationally, and it's an honour to have Canada chairing the international commissioners of sustainable development.... How does our structure differ, or does it, from the kinds of commissions you would see internationally in other countries?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We are the only country in the world that has a commission of environment and sustainable development within an auditor general's office, or what we call in Europe

[Translation]

The Court of Account.

[English]

It doesn't mean that some similar organizations like ours are not doing environmental auditing.

I was in Oslo last week dealing with 82 countries, and I was talking about environmental auditing. We should be very proud because we're probably the only country around the world that is doing so many environmental audits, and also the only country that has tried to integrate sustainable development in its work.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When you audit and you look at what Canada is doing—and clearly it's with a critical eye, and I recognize that—do you actually look at the science and the validity of science? I know from time to time we'll read in newspapers an attack on the scientific basis upon which the government sometimes makes its decision. Do you look to that detail, and is that something that would be in your recommendations as well?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Yes. We look at that as often as we can. In the Great Lakes report, Mr. Chairman, we will have a section that will address the scientific data and scientific evidence.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Could I go for a second round, please, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, of course. We will go for a second round with everybody.

We have now Madame Carroll, Madame Scherrer, the chair, and then we'll start the second round.

[Translation]

Ms. Carroll, please.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation this morning, Madam Commissioner. I have a question with regard to possible amendments to the Auditor General Act, to give you broader powers, and particularly with reference to auditing the environmental practices of crown corporations. Have you ever looked into that, or has that ever been something your office might contemplate? Recently I have been working on the climate change issue within the environment caucus, and we've been working with industry and the private sector just with regard to what they're doing and what they're not doing, obviously voluntary. I get increasingly interested in environmental practices within the private sector. So those being ours insofar as they're crown, I wonder if that issue has come forward in your office.

• 1010

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Before we get into crown corporations, I want to let you know that we have done some work on EDC, and that was not done by the commissioner's office, Mr. Chair. It was done by the Office of the Auditor General. Rick Smith is here with me and he was responsible for that audit. So this audit was initiated by an order in council.

Considering crown corporations now, once every five years the office does what we call a special examination of crowns. We are able at that stage to influence the work of our colleagues and make sure they are looking at environmental and sustainable development issues. Having said that, I have to say that these crowns are not preparing sustainable development strategies compared to departments, and most of the time their reports, the special examinations we do, are not public. That's as far as I can go concerning crowns. Yes, we can look at them, but once every five years when we do the special exam.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: A supplementary, Mr. Chair?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Maybe I got your question wrong—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, no. The acoustics in this room are not very good. I just want to ask a supplementary. Your answer was right on target.

Would you feel that your ability to request those reports without an audit, without having to reach to the authority of the Auditor General—and it is a shame, because I think initially the idea for your office was to make you equivalent to the Auditor General, and instead you've been placed subservient in the hierarchy. That said, do you feel there's a need to enhance your authority, given the role you're in, so you can compel those kinds of reports, and, having done so, have the authority to have them made public? It seems in this era incredibly odd—really the best word I can think of is “odd”—that those crown corporations don't have that onus, and then when they do comply, they can do so within their boardrooms, so to speak.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Maybe to give you a little bit of history on that and the discussions we have had in the office in the past, I can ask Wayne to give you some detail, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wayne Cluskey (Principal, Environment Audit Team, Officer of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you.

I was very heavily involved in the development of the legislation, as some members will recall, and the question of crown corporations did come up. The difficulty—and this is why crown corporations are not referred to in the Auditor General Act; they have a completely different relationship with Parliament than government departments. By the same token, the relationship with us is different. We do audits of crown corporations and then we report to the board of directors. We don't report directly to Parliament, as we do with departments. Our role with crown corporations is dealt with in the individual acts relating to crown corporations. It's also dealt with in the crown corporations act, and that's why the lawyers stayed away from any reference to crown corporations in the act. That's why there's no reference to crown corporations actually in the Auditor General Act.

There is just one other point I might mention. Whether Auditor General or Commissioner, we cannot compel any organization, department, or crown corporation to do anything. We can recommend, we can cajole, we can persuade, but we cannot force them to do anything. It's not within our mandate.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's right, and I knew that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Carroll.

[Translation]

Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Gélinas, I am pleased to welcome you here today. My family also had a tradition, and ours was to say: “I hope that your wish will be granted”. But we also believed that if you revealed your wish, it would not come true, and you then had to make another one. So, you have to keep your wishes secret.

But I would like to get back to one of the questions raised by my colleagues. I am tempted to ask you whether you are the Commissioner of the Environment with a capital “E” or a lowercase “e”. In other words, I wonder whether you fall under the Department of the Environment as such.

• 1015

What strikes me, increasingly, is that with the involvement of this committee, environment is becoming a horizontal concept. It is no longer a vertical concept with very specific issues relating to the environment. As you said quite rightly, this concept is discussed and impacts agriculture, fisheries, natural resources, and transport. You will probably tell me that it also applies to finances in the same way. Yes, but the implications are different. I do believe that environment has now become a horizontal concept.

Do you intend to speak to the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, or to all of those other committees, to recommend that you no longer be Commissioner of the Environment what a capital “E”, in that sense that you are specifically attached to the Department of the Environment, so that the environment becomes recognized as a horizontal concept? Thus, whenever a bill is related in any way to the environment or has environmental aspects, you could then be present at the hearings of the committee studying the bill.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I tell you that that is my dearest wish, will you tell me that it will not come true?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: There you go again, divulging your wish.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, even if this committee is our natural client and we do wish to have close relationships with it in the future, I must say that if I want to become the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development with a capital “E” and a capital “S”, I will have to be allowed to go to other parliamentary committees and ensure that we have more allies to support our recommendations. We would like to undertake a collaboration with various committees, such as the Committee on Canadian Heritage, the Indian Affairs Committee, the Fisheries Committee, but we will always have a privileged and special relationship with this particular committee.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Here is my second question: what strikes me since I have become more involved with environmental issues is the timing of the reaction or awareness of the government or of Canadians with regard to environment. When there is a problem, people shout. Whether we are discussing water quality, air quality, the pollution of the Great Lakes or several other important issues, I am under the impression that whenever a problem is detected in one area or another, there is suddenly a greater awareness and a greater involvement on the past of the government.

I know that you referred at one point to listening to people on these issues, to managing files and providing follow-up, and to monitoring results. Do you have an upstream policy that will allow us to see what is coming down the pipeline, rather than having to react to things as they occur?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There will always be topics that make the headlines and pique the interest of Canadians, and which we will have to grapple with. Moreover, I agree entirely that we must also do some prevention work. We have to be at the forefront. It is in talking with Canadians, precisely, that we will be able to identify emerging topics and concerns. The “catastrophe” will not yet have occurred and we will be able to propose more proactive, preventive recommendations to departments and federal agencies. Indeed, we must be able to foresee what is going to happen and be proactive—

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Is that also part of your mandate?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Quite so. That is indeed sustainable development. It is not reacting to problems but putting mechanisms in place that will allow us to act and to have a quality of life that will reduce environmental problems, among others.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: But too often, reaction was the order of the day. Whenever we heard about the environment it was in a reactive situation, not necessarily a catastrophe, but a reaction to a situation which was deteriorating. For instance, the bill on endangered species should never have become necessary. We should simply have prepared a bill protecting certain species rather than having waited for the species to become endangered. The same thing applies to water quality and Great Lakes pollution, for instance. We shouldn't have to suddenly react because they are polluted. We should have thought about preventing that pollution, somewhere back then. I think that we should emphasize that aspect rather than working on correcting the problems that we have created.

The Chair: Would you like to make a comment?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No, that's all right.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1020

[English]

Let me first agree with a number of points you made, perhaps disagree with one, and then go on with some specific questions, Madame Gélinas. I certainly agree with what you said about the importance of improving communications and raising the profile of your office. You said you intend to consider your reports as being the beginning of a process. That of course raises the question about what happens to the many recommendations made by your predecessor that have not been implemented. I welcome your approach to the process of reports and also what you said about petitions in reply to Mr. Mills and the importance of following up.

Also, we assume that within the Auditor General's office you enjoy equal status, as was originally intended.

Where I slightly disagree with you is to consider this committee as your client. I don't like that term. This committee is your harbour and your group of supporters. Over the years we have become more and more the ambassadors of the commissioner. Therefore, the relationship is much broader than that of a client.

In following your presentation, the thought that came into my mind was this. In relation to your slide entitled “2001: Managing for Sustainable Development”, I'd like to ask whether you interpret sustainable development as being an integrating process rather than a balancing process. You know that for two departments, namely, Industry and NRCan, in their legislation of 1994, sustainable development is included as their mandate. However, the impression these two departments give is that their interpretation of sustainable development is as a balancing act between the economy and the environment, rather than an integrating concept. That has very serious consequences because it influences conceptually the evolution of policies and programs. I would like to bring this to your attention, and if you have any comments, I will certainly welcome them.

Like Ms. Carroll, I also have an interest in crown agencies. We were not able to include them in 1994-95 when this committee was dealing with the legislation. We understand the reasons given by Mr. Cluskey. But you can rest assured that when questions were raised in the House of Commons on the Export Development Corporation, we were horrified to learn about what appeared in the media at the time. I don't know if it is healthy to wait for an Order in Council in order to launch this kind of auditing. Certainly, the Export Development Corporation seems to require a continuous type of auditing, judging from recent comments as well. So I would like to revisit the issue of crown agencies with you, perhaps at a later date.

As to your long-term projects, I notice that you do not include in the plans for 2003 and beyond either forestry or fisheries. It would be helpful if you were to consider including the issue of sustainability of these two resources, particularly in the case of fisheries. Let me, for instance, draw your attention to the fact that the total allowable catch for cod, the TAC, as it is usually referred to, in the late eighties was way higher than the resource that was actually fished, which eventually led to the moratorium. In other words, there's something basically wrong in the calculations of these catches. Moving now swiftly to forestry, with the kind of fragmented inventory we have in Canada, we still don't know whether we are on a sustainable path.

• 1025

It would also be interesting to hear whether you have thoughts about studying population levels for Canada from a sustainable perspective and whether you intend to embark on that kind of examination. I don't know what you would be able to audit. I would be at a loss there. But you may want to look at the Department of Immigration policies and the 1%, which is the rule of thumb for sustainable population growth. But there are a number of regional and national issues involved in that particular item.

Mr. Reed raised an important point, which I share with him, and that is energy consumption in the Great Lakes region, energy efficiency, and alternatives to energy as an important policy area in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas reduction policies. Here I have to ask you whether you intend to audit the Department of Finance to determine if it has counterproductive taxation measures that have a negative impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases; in other words, a study of their perverse subsidies and possibly an auditing of their policies in relation to renewable energy resources, which do not enjoy the same treatment as the fossil fuel sources of energy.

I'm sorry if I've gone over my time, but I would like to hear a brief comment.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: First, let me tell you that I probably hate the word “client” as much as you do, and that will be the last time I will use that word. The word “harbour” sounds much more peaceful to my ear, so let's go with that in the future.

With regard to integrating sustainable development, as I told you, we will start a totally new approach with regard to sustainable development in the future. Starting next year and the year after, the departments you named will certainly be part of our audit work to make sure we are getting into an integrated approach. We have the same goal on that one.

We'll be pleased to discuss the crown agencies with you in the future.

About what is coming up for 2003 and beyond, I didn't give you the details of what we have on our drawing board. We are just starting to figure out what should be our priorities with regard to some of these issues in the future.

When I spoke about natural resources, what we have in mind is looking at forestry, mining, and other issues that should be part of this umbrella team of natural resources in Canada.

About the fisheries, as you certainly know, we have a group that looks after the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are working very closely with this group to make sure the sustainable development component and some environmental issues are taken into account in their planning exercise for the future. You may wish to have this group from the Auditor General's office testify in front of you in the future.

With regard to the other aspects related to population growth, these are things that I'll take note of, and we may wish to consider those in the future.

Concerning the energy policy, this is something we intend to look at in the future. Just to remind you, in this year's report we will do a follow-up of the energy efficiency audit that we did a couple of years ago.

• 1030

The Chair: Thank you.

Second round: we start with Mr. Forseth, followed by the others. Please, go ahead.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

We can talk about sustainable development. Let's get right to the here and now. We like tourism in the summertime. We like tourism dollars. But do we like what it leaves behind? In Vancouver now we have the cruise ship season, coming and going out of Vancouver, up into Alaska. But there's a comment certainly about the rules, regulations, and pollution laws that govern the cruise ship industry in Alaska and in Washington State versus the same regulations in B.C. waters. Some groups are saying now that because of the differential between the regulations and control exercised in American waters versus ours, we're heading into a situation where the tougher regulations in the United States mean the cruise ships will be more likely to discharge black and grey water in Canadian waters.

It was noted that there's been an historical lack of monitoring and enforcement of cruise ships in Canadian waters under existing law and regulations, including the Fisheries Act, which does provide for stiff penalties for any discharge that can be seen to have a harmful effect on fish. It's also been noted that there have been no cases of any charges brought against cruise ships in Canadian waters during our existing laws from 1993 to 1998, while during the same period, 104 cases were brought in other jurisdictions, including the Caribbean and the United States, that resulted in $30 million in penalties against cruise ship companies, which is causing them to retrofit and certainly raise their standards.

I'm talking about an issue of accountability of existing law in Canadian jurisdiction and I'm also highlighting the gaps in the law. This is certainly something that I'm certain you would look at from an auditor point of view. I'm asking, have you addressed this issue? Perhaps you can look at this issue. What comments can you give about something that concerns sustainable development? We want to continue to grow the tourist industry, but do we really like what it leaves behind?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I don't think we have looked at that issue. This is something we may wish to consider in the future. We will have to do some homework on that because this is an area I don't know anything about.

I will take this opportunity, though, to raise once again the value of the petition process. When you're looking for a very specific question on an issue like this, a first move can be to have your constituents send us a petition and get some information from the departments responsible for looking after some of the regulations or the issues with respect to that specific one. At this stage, I cannot go further than that in my reply to you.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I hope you will follow this because this is something that's very obvious to British Columbians, to boat owners, to people concerned with the value of their property, and of course to the very sensitive resource of, say, the Fraser River run of salmon and so on. We must carefully look at the international context. To say that maybe we have enforcement...we look at the process, and an international company is going to look at the so-called costs of doing business. If consequences in Canada, or fines or regulations or whatever, or the inconvenience, are at a great differential as compared to the other jurisdictions where they flow through, we're going to be the dumping ground.

We may say that we have enforcement, we have rules and regulations, and we have officers looking at things, but we have to look at the context we are in. There's a great international competition in the cruise ship industry, and on the west coast we are very concerned about it. Certainly, there's some cruise ship industry coming up to Quebec City and on the east coast as well. I'm highlighting it for you to look at what is the monitoring of our situation, especially in the international context.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, I welcome further information on that for consideration.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

• 1035

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With a new commissioner, one often sees the development of a new vision. I would like us to project ourselves into the future in order to see what might be in a future report of the Commissioner of the Environment.

Until now, when you have studied very specific problems or issues you audited all of the departments and not only the Environment Department. It could just as well be the Department of Health, Natural Resources, or Transport Canada. The smog issue is a good example.

You said earlier—and I noted a question put to you by Mr. Reed—that you might possibly consider a joint audit with the provinces. I would like to know what that means, exactly. Could it mean, for instance, that a future report of the Commissioner of the Environment, in addition to containing data and information from federal departments, as is currently the case when a particular problem or issue is being studied, might also include data and information from provincial departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture or Transport? These data would be sent to the Auditor General or to the commissioner and integrated into a future report. I would like to know whether that is conceivable and whether it is part of your approach.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I can't say that I have a great deal of experience with regard to collaborative efforts between the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and the provinces, but I can give you some idea of what I have in mind concerning work that could be done in the future. I might then ask Mr. Cluskey to share with you some examples of work that was done in the past, or attempts that have been made.

Ideally, one would focus on a particular matter and adjust respective programs to approach it. To my mind this does not mean that provincial data would be integrated into the audit report of the Commissioner of the Environment. It does mean that at a certain point we would release a joint report, or separate reports. According to our respective jurisdictions, we would discuss a specific matter.

As an example, but really just as an example, concerning the National Infrastructure Program, where there is federal-provincial co-operation, our group could cover the federal part and the Office of the Auditor General could cover the other section, and we could have common audit criteria.

[English]

Would you like to add something on that?

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: I might add that two or three years ago we did an audit of the bilateral arrangements, actually at the request of this committee. We have to be very careful because the federal-provincial relations between auditors general are just as delicate as they are in the bureaucracy in general. We did, in a backhand sort of way, make a comment on what the provincial governments were not doing, but it is very delicate. We are certainly trying to do some work with our provincial colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: What I understand is that this joint audit could be done when there are agreements; infrastructures are a good example. But could this also extend to areas concerning which agreements have been signed among provinces: agreements on environmental harmonization, environmental agreements, or others, pan-Canadian agreements? Could this audit be carried out on issues that have been the object of pan-Canadian agreements, such as environmental assessment, if there is such an agreement?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: According to what I understand, to the extent that a province wants to work with the Office of the Auditor General, I believe that this could be done, but it does bear closer scrutiny. However, and I want to make myself clear on this, the idea is not to carry out an audit with all of the provinces, but to launch a first attempt at co-operating with a province on a given topic.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Comartin? No.

Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

• 1040

I was just looking at the slide regarding your plans for 2002 and the “Take Stock” report, which will look at the progress over the last ten years in different areas. I'm just wondering if you will be able to have this report completed for the Rio plus ten summit.

As well, I'm wondering what kind of focus you will have on risk assessment. This committee completed a year-long study of pesticides, and I think the risk assessment component of our study was a very important component. It just really highlighted some of the problems we have in the current theory and practice of risk assessment.

I also wonder if you would do a bit of a study looking at what other international regimes are doing with regard to risk assessment, perhaps pushing the envelope a little bit more and dealing with some of the criticisms of the field itself. So there are two questions then.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: On your first question, Johannesburg 2002 is supposed to take place sometime in September of that year. We will probably be a little bit behind or ahead of that—it's not fixed exactly which date we will be tabling—but we will be very close. We will use that momentum. That's the idea too, to use the momentum of Rio plus ten to talk about our key findings with respect to progress on some of these issues.

Concerning the other aspect, we are at the moment finalizing what we will be looking to report on in considering this specific report in 2002.

So you raise a couple of issues that are of interest to you, and they might be taken into account in our work, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you. The other area related to risk assessment, of course, is the whole issue of science in the public interest. There were a lot of cuts made a number of years ago, and the scientific capacity of the federal government was greatly eroded. I think there have been some good measures to begin to build the process, but I fear there are still problems within the capacity of the federal government to do good public interest science. That's another issue, particularly as it relates to toxic substances and if you want to look at issues related to environmental health.

The other thing is how public-interest-based science is used within the federal government. Often, the research scientific arm of a department works in isolation with its policy arm, and the two areas do not work together; they meet at a more senior level. I do get concerns that people who are at more of a program policy level are not talking to some of the research scientists. In some respects, it becomes a bit politicized, and I know there are some very high-profile examples of this.

I am particularly concerned about the fate of public interest science within the federal government because it truly is at the heart of public policy-making in this country. I'm wondering if that's another area you might pursue.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Scientific information, Mr. Chairman, is for me the basis of a good decision-making process. In each and every audit we will do...we have to look at that all the time, so it will always be considered in our audit work. It has been done in the past and it will continue to be taken into account in all of the audit work we will be doing.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But will you look at it as a separate issue itself? I feel it's one of the fundamentals for making good public policy decisions. After having worked on the environmental file since 1993 as a member of Parliament, I really feel that if you look at some of the systemic problems in making good public policy decisions, it clearly relates to the erosion of public-interest-based science.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: So you're talking about a stand-alone audit on this specific one. It's not in the working plan at the moment, but certainly we can consider doing that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, you opened a bit of a door in your last exchange with the commissioner that I'd like to walk through a little bit, if I may, and it has to do with the comment about renewable energy.

• 1045

The opening preamble, which was written in 1996, concerning renewable energy policy in Canada, said it should be market driven. The little bit of red that's in my neck means a phrase like that sits sweetly with me. It's been four years, and finally the lights came on: I realized there's no energy in Canada that's market driven at all, whether it's the tar sands development or nuclear power, or whatever it is; it's not market driven. It's always been my belief that if renewable energy could operate on a level playing field, it could easily compete with these other forms of perhaps less acceptable forms in terms of sustainability. I just want to leave that thought with you.

The other thought—and I will even be brief—is will you be able to examine the sustainable practices of government ministries themselves? The reason I bring that up is that very often there are environmental practices in the field by government ministries, not necessarily federal government ministries but all forms of government, that would result in charges being laid against a private citizen, but because it's “government”, it's okay. Will you have the mandate to examine that sort of activity?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I understand you correctly, I would say that sustainable development strategy is all about.... If we have a strategy, Mr. Chairman, that does not translate to the business plan and to the activities of the departments, we have a problem. When you were talking about the integration of SD, that's what I have in mind. So if there are some practices in government that don't respect their strategy, we have to report on that for sure. We have a wonderful tool to use, and we have to make use of that tool more and more, which is the strategy.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Is that all, Mr. Reed?

Mr. Julian Reed: Yes. I'm trying to be generous and leave time for my colleagues.

The Chair: I was hoping for more food for thought from you.

Madame Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I have actually three and a half questions, so I'll pose them all and let you answer them.

Cognizant that this is televised, I wonder if you could give us sort of a 101 session on petitions, if somebody's watching this and is intrigued about how they would go about putting a petition in through their member. It's probably an opportunity to do a little bit of education.

Mr. Forseth already touched on one of the issues that I think creates tension in the whole sustainable development environmental field, and that's how do you balance environmental needs with social and economic needs? I guess I'd just like to flesh out your answer a little more, that that lens is being dealt with when you do the audits.

In addition to that, you've talked about your international work. I look at the Great Lakes basin, as well as the St. Lawrence, and our relationship with our neighbour to the south. I know internationally some of the environmental issues that are currently making the headlines are demonstrating maybe a bit of a divergence in our approaches, if not our end goal. Certainly everybody acknowledges that global warming is happening and it's an issue that needs to be attended to. There is tension between what Canadian environment ministers are saying and what we're hearing from the administration in the United States. I think of that whole Great Lakes basin. As part of your audit, are you looking at the mechanisms to work cooperatively on shared goals? I think that's really key.

My final question is, what would you consider success at the end of your mandate?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Is that the half one?

Mrs. Karen Redman: No, the half one actually was the environmental and international tensions.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: This last one is the $1 million question.

Let's start with the petitions.

• 1050

If I got you right, you want to hear in simple words what is the petition process. It's quite simple. Any of your constituents can write to the Auditor General or myself a very simple letter asking for information for a certain department, if they can clearly identify which one it is, or just asking a general question and stating what they would like to get in terms of information from the government. If it's not clear, we will get back to them and make sure we get clarification on it. Then we will forward that petition to one or more departments. The department has to get back to us with an answer within 120 days. In the future we will do something different. We will have a closer look at the quality of those answers, and we may decide to do a follow-up on those petitions. Moreover, all of this information will be in the public domain. So, in simple words, write us a letter, and we will make sure your concerns are responded to.

With regard to the three components and how we deal with the social, economic, and environmental dimensions, sometimes when I make speeches I refer to a very simple example. In terms of the forests or fisheries, if we don't manage the resource in a sustainable manner, at the end of the day the community will disappear because they will have economic problems. Their living is based on the resource. These are all the dimensions we have to deal with. We have to use the resources in a sustainable way to make sure there will be economic growth and that people will be able to live in an area that is protected in terms of the environment.

It's a very difficult and tricky approach. So far in this country and elsewhere we have focused on environmental matters, and now we have to go beyond that. We're all learning how we can integrate the three components. We have to look at that in my own group and also in the rest of the office. For example, some groups that are looking at the economic component will have to integrate the social dimension and the environmental dimension into their audit work. So we are learning. We are moving, and, as far as I'm concerned, we are moving in the right direction.

About the Great Lakes, a section of our report will deal with the relationship between the two countries, so you will be able to know a little bit more about that. As I told you, in the future we would like to do more work jointly and at least share information with our counterparts in the U.S.

Finally, with regard to what I would like to accomplish within the next five years, I would like to make sure—and it's almost my priority—that Canadians are aware of the petition process and are using it more. They can get very good information based on that process.

I would like to move along the path of the Auditor General, so that we are well-known, and to work very hard on the credibility and the respect the Auditor General has. I would like to make sure that in the environmental field we gain that credibility and respect. So far we're doing quite well on that. I'd also like to at least get the impression I made a difference in making this country a better place to live.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Gélinas.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Commissioner, the question has already been put to you by Mr. Forseth, but I just thought I might add to it so that you'll hear that two of us are concerned about the same topic.

• 1055

It's very interesting, because I'm sitting here with a file on that very issue, not for our discussions this morning—and I'm glad he mentioned it because I think it does properly fit within your mandate to monitor that.

The issue has now moved into the cruise ships, but prior to that I think we have, on the east coast, suffered considerably, as the ships that have been there have been releasing their oil into the waters off Newfoundland, with the subsequent loss of thousands of sea birds, which is a very dreadful way to die.

The reason they have been very quick to do that is because it is indeed, just as was said, a business decision. Also, if you look at what was done by Janet Reno as Attorney General in the States in fining a cruise ship, in this case for dumping its oil rather than grey water, off the coast of Miami, she hit them with a fine of around $1.8 million. That then moves out of the cost of doing business. But the wiser the Americans get—and they are wise indeed to impose those fines—the more at risk we are on both coasts with regard to the dumping of oil or, now, grey water if we don't come up and meet that same standard.

I would argue consistently, as I do with my government, that although we have increased fines, they are still well within the cost of doing business. It's better. It's not nearly what it has to be. I think this is something that I would be delighted to know your office was monitoring, to see that we're doing our job as a government.

I just thought I'd reinforce my colleague's question to you.

Thank you.

The Chair: No comment?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No.

The Chair: Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have a brief comment about the report. It is difficult to discuss a report we have not yet seen; nor do we know what form it will take.

I would like to know whether this report will provide information on Canada's state of health, with regard to the environment. Will this report be a diagnosis of the soundness of Canada's territory as a whole, from the environmental perspective?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Are you referring to the 2001 report?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I am referring to the next report to be tabled.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. The report to be tabled will put forward certain points and conclusions relating to the management of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin by the federal government. It will, this time, really focus on a specific region.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: So the assessment will only concern the St. Lawrence Basin. You will only cover that site.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: One of the three parts of the 2001 report discusses this region in particular and the federal government's involvement at various levels.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Very well. My second question involves what we heard today about socio-economic aspects. I must say that I am a bit worried when you say you will have to consider socio- economic aspects. One might hope that those who are concerned with the environment would make recommendations that do not necessarily take socio-economic matters and the tourist trade into consideration. I would have liked them to choose to focus their recommendations on the environment, and if other departments are to work with them in setting up policies, it would be good that environmental considerations be the starting point.

If economic repercussions or the tourist industry are taken into account, it is certain that your recommendations will be somewhat diluted. You will feel that you cannot be too strict in order not to interfere with the tourist industry or some other industry.

I do not know if that is what you do, but I would have hoped that recommendations from the environment sector be purely environmental recommendations. Later, they could be applied, not necessarily as such, but be taken into account by those who have other concerns, be it regional development, economic development or finance. It would be a good thing if your recommendations focussed strictly on the environment.

• 1100

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In fact, I think we are saying the same thing. When we report on, put forward the environmental impact of any activity, it is important to me as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to emphasize the fact that there are social impacts as well. Environmental impacts do not exist in a vacuum. There are social and economic impacts also.

Moreover, concerning certain economic activities, it is important to look at the environmental and social consequences of those activities, even though they are of a primarily economic nature. I believe we agree. We are saying the same thing. My field is the environment, but I cannot limit myself to environmental impacts only. I must see whether our practices, while respecting sustainable development, will have impacts on the social and economic environments.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: That does perturb me a bit. Let's go back to cruises as an example. I believe that the role of the Commissioner of the Environment is to ascertain whether cruises will or will not affect the quality of the water in the Basin.

You feel they do. I think that that is indeed the case because of waste, traffic, and the number of accidents. I believe that they may indeed have an impact on the environment.

However, I do not see why you should necessarily take into consideration the fact that limiting cruises could be harmful to the development of the tourist industry. I have trouble seeing how that falls under your mandate, why you should assess the economic impact. Your mandate is to say whether an activity is harmful to the environment.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In fact, I do not say anything. I study the programs and policies put in place by the departments and I report on whether they are being complied with and applied.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: You do not make recommendations?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I make recommendations to improve program compliance and respect of government commitments, and my report is intended to help you, afterwards, make recommendations if these policies and programs need to be reviewed.

It is not up to me to assess the relevancy of a program or a policy put in place by the government, but I am here to tell you to what extend it is being implemented, enforced, complied with.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: And the impact...

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If certain measures would further compliance, I will suggest them in the report. You, however, have the last word, the citizens and yourself, when you ask that certain programs or policies be reviewed.

Thus, I do not make judgments involving the economy, social aspects or even environmental ones. I report to you about what is happening in the federal administration.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you.

The Chair: But in the sustainable development context, is that not so? Within the context of a sustainable development policy.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Absolutely.

The Chair: If the government has adopted a sustainable development policy, comments must also be made about the Transport Department programs that allow cruises to pollute the waters, would you not agree?

[English]

I think we are on track there.

But going back to the exchange with Madame Redman on sustainability of natural resources, the sustainability of a resource can be compared to a bank account. The resource represents the capital, its annual growth represents its interest, and we are on a sustainable path when you don't eat the capital but you live off the interest. That is a banking analogy that can be very helpful in getting across the meaning of the sustainable use of a resource.

• 1105

I would like to ask you whether you have any impediments in the carrying out of your work, whether there are limitations that you find difficult in your operations, whether your budget is adequate, whether you find the cooperation of other departments adequate, whether you are satisfied with the interpretation of departments of sustainable development that correspond with yours, and, finally, after six years, whether you are planning to examine your own act and make recommendations about changes.

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I am going to take that question into advisement. I will complete a full one-year cycle. I have now devoted a lot of time to the next report. There are some priorities still to be explored. Some of the issues you raised are also of concern to me, and I would like to be able to study them more in detail before giving a reply. With your permission, I will examine them and perhaps we can discuss them again a bit later.

[English]

The Chair: That is a cryptic answer, but we'll have to....

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Continuing on with the watchdog role that you do have and questioning if we are on a sustainable path, part of what you need to look at, I would think, are a clean-up of past operations and learning from the past, to apply that to present operations. I'm specifically talking about mining operations.

Now our three-country panel on the environment has recommended opening an investigation into whether Canada broke its own Fisheries Act by allowing three British Columbia mines to dump toxic sludge into the Pacific Ocean. The secretariat of the North American Commission on Environmental Co-operation—that's the commission we created under NAFTA—has got involved and they are specifically looking at the Mount Washington mine on Vancouver Island, the Britannia mine in North Vancouver, and the Tulsequah Chief mine near the B.C.-Alaska border. They've all been closed for years, but certainly they've never been properly cleaned up.

The allegation, of course, is that the Fisheries Act was never applied while these mines were in operation because the Government of Canada sought to give a competitive advantage to the companies that were operating them.

Now we've got a clean-up issue, and we've got this agency getting their oar in, so to speak. We're wondering about your watchdog role, about our commitments to clean up, and also to learn from that to apply that to present mining operations.

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There are two parts to my answer, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, our 2002 report will review certain commitments the federal government has taken as regards the decontamination of certain sites. As for mines, the issue will certainly be looked at in the future by the Commissioner's team.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, we'll leave it at that. We'll hold you to it.

The Chair: Any further comments? Mr. Cluskey.

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: I was just going to say in response to Mr. Forseth that we've done work too in the past, back in 1995 and 1996, I guess it was, on contaminated sites. You'd probably be interested to know that I'm making a presentation to the Canadian Mining Association on June 26 in Winnipeg on an auditor's perspective of contaminated sites.

We've looked at the legacy of management of hazardous waste. We've looked at the legacy of the management of radioactive waste. We also follow up on those particular audits and so on. We've done quite a bit of work, and as Madam Gélinas has said, we certainly plan to do more in the future.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Just briefly, I was wondering what the cut-off date is for the fall report in terms of material that will be included in the Great Lakes basin-St. Lawrence study.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It's past.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're already finished.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We are in the clearance process now.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So when was the cut-off date?

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: Probably two months ago at least because of the logistics of having to prepare the report, clear it, do the translation, and so on.

• 1110

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I understand.

While the Walkerton inquiry is a provincial issue, a lot of very interesting and damning testimony has come out of that process as well.

Thank you very much. That's fine.

The Chair: The Auditor General has produced, over the years, some very valuable reports that touch on the environment. One of them is on nuclear waste.

Going back to your emphasis on follow-up, does that mean you intend to follow up the recommendations contained in some key Auditor General report so as to see to what extent his recommendations have been implemented?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Yes. This is something we will do jointly with our colleagues in the Office of the Auditor General, and we may decide to go further, too, with respect to this specific issue.

The Chair: Have you already selected which report of the Auditor General you intend to follow up?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No.

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: We're taking a retroactive look at all the recommendations and observations we've made in the past several years, and we'll decide which ones are still outstanding enough and relevant enough to be followed up. So it wouldn't be a question of looking at a specific report, but simply looking at the observations and recommendations in all reports, whether they're done by the commissioner or by the rest of the Auditor General's staff.

The Chair: Right. So you're bringing them together into one stream, and then you will decide on which questions you intend to follow up. Is that a fair conclusion?

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: Yes.

Actually, interestingly enough, I was the principal on most of those audits, so we would probably carry out the follow-up ourselves...in conjunction with discussions with other principals in the office. We'll probably do the actual work ourselves to make sure it's very coherent and consistent.

The Chair: When you have decided on which topics you intend to follow up, would you be willing to inform this committee of your choices?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Yes, we will, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Fine.

Then we can conclude today's meeting. We thank you very much. This was an extremely important meeting for us, and very informative. We're very impressed with your agenda, and we are available to meet with you again. We wish you well.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Thank you.

The Chair: This meeting stands adjourned until further notice.