ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 20, 2003

Á

1100

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Á

1105

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General )

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Á

1120

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Á

1125

Mr. John Reed (Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Á

1130

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Á

1140

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Á

1145

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Á

1150

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Á

1155

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Julian Reed

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1200

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Â

1205

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Â

1215

Â

1220

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Â

1225

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Reed

Â

1235

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 017

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, everybody.

    We have the good news that the Minister of the Environment will appear before this committee on Tuesday. To make that meeting as profitable, productive, and informative as possible, it would be desirable if members of the committee would look at the latest taxation bible here, the budget plan, particularly the paragraphs on page 150 and onwards. It is worth looking at them, because I think, with that type of background, you will be able to ask sharper and more penetrating questions than otherwise and have a good time.

    Second, we have made contact with Peter Pearse on the west coast in regard to water for a consultation meeting with him, and he will indicate to us when he will be available to appear.

    The third announcement has to do with the fact that the Department of Environment is preparing to appear before us on the project related to the resurrection of the yearly report on the state of the environment, something this committee would like to explore and write about, but in the form of a short meeting. They will be ready on March 20, we're told. As you know, the first two weeks in March are weeks to be with the family and constituents and friends and supporters, so make a note that on March 20 the Department of the Environment will appear.

Á  (1105)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bigras, I'd simply like to note that the Minister of the Environment will be in attendance next Tuesday.

[English]

    We are extremely fortunate and happy to have our beloved Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development with us. She has a number of very interesting thoughts to put forward, so we will give her the floor without delay.

    We welcome you, and your officials of course, and we thank you for the good work you are constantly doing on behalf of the cause of sustainable development.

[Translation]

    Ms. Gélinas, you have the floor.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

    As is my custom, I will make a brief statement and then would be pleased to answer any questions. I'm joined at the table today by John Reed, the principal responsible for the audit work on sustainable development strategies; Mr. Reed drafted the document dealing with the Commissioner's expectations relating to the next generation of strategies.

    I will start by briefly mentioning some of the major audit findings from the report tabled last October. As you may recall, we found that the federal government has been very slow to reduce the releases and health risks of toxic substances and pesticides or to act on the recommendations of our 1999 audit. Secondly, it has failed to assess, let alone clean up, the thousands of contaminated sites it owns, despite 13 years of commitments. Third, it is not prepared to deal with the financial and environmental implications of heavily contaminated abandoned mines in Canada's North. Fourth, it has not dealt effectively with invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystems, habitats, and native species, despite longstanding commitments to do so.

    These findings have disturbing implications for our health and our pocket book. I hope that in due course this committee, or perhaps other parliamentary committees, will investigate the specific issues we have reported to find out from the government what action it plans to take, what resources it will provide, who will be accountable for the results, and how Parliament and Canadians will kept informed of progress.

    My October 2002 report also looked at the government's overall track record in sustainable development over the past decade. As you may remember, my conclusion was air. The federal government is not investing enough to fulfill its sustainable resource promises—not enough of its human and financial resources, its legislative and economic powers, or its leadership.

    This has created a growing ecological, health and financial burden for us and our children—an environment and sustainable development deficit, so to speak.

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    With this deficit in mind, my objective today is to focus on the future, not the past, in two other areas addressed in my report, namely the government's response to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and Health in Johannesburg and the sustainable development strategies of federal departments and agencies. In both areas I believe concerted action is needed by the government, and I think this committee in particular could help drive that action.

    The major output of the Johannesburg summit was the so-called plan of implementation. I know there are mixed views out there on how meaningful the summit really was. My own view is that the summit was and is of vital importance for the world. For all of its weaknesses, promises, and diplomatic language, the Johannesburg plan does contain important and noble ideas and commitments. It is, in fact, the current global plan to protect our planet and build a better world for its people. But dealing with the Johannesburg plan needs a different approach from the response to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Rio too produced many novel ideas, but governments failed by and large to implement them. We cannot make that mistake again.

    Success, in my view, depends on three conditions. First, the federal government must develop a concrete, prioritized, and resourced action plan for the future. Progress against this plan must be tracked. Departments and their ministers must be held accountable for that progress. Second, there need to be audits by my office of the federal government's performance against selected Johannesburg commitments. I plan to carry them out. I can tell you that national audit offices around the world are taking a great interest in the Johannesburg plan. We are working on a strategy to collectively address our respective governments' performances. Third, ongoing oversight by Parliament is needed, and I will return to this point.

[Translation]

    The second area of focus I raised is the sustainable development strategies. As the committee that stewarded the amendments to the Auditor General's Act in 1995 and created the requirement that departments develop the strategies, you know that these are important tools in the machinery of the federal government. They were intended to drive changes in federal policies and decision-making.

    But we have found that the current strategies are largely a catalogue of the status quo and not creating a significant change, as Parliament intended.

    In my view, departments are floundering. There is no overall direction or support from the centre—the guidance to departments that does exist is discretionary or outdated. There is no overall federal perspective or set of priorities, although I understand that an overall federal strategy of some sort is being developed. And leadership and accountability are unclear. Everyone is in charge, so effectively no one is in charge. That's the bad news.

    The good news is that the government has many strengths to build on. I believe we have a leading edge, "made in Canada" approach to sustainable development that is both innovative and unique. The approach has evolved over time as we and departments have learned what works, what doesn't, and what more is needed. And I know that there is a commitment to continuously improve the approach and results achieved. This is a crucial time in the evolution of these strategies, with the third revision due to be tabled in Parliament by the end of 2003.

    I plan to set out formally by the end of February what I expect in this third round of strategies. You will find in an appendix a brief summary of my expectations. My expectations will build on the findings of my last report. Among other things, I will be urging the government to define clearer sustainable development priorities, develop a long-term vision, focus on results and not activities, track results and report on them, and improve coordination on horizontal issues.

    Mr. Chairman, in previous hearings you have asked how this committee can help me do my job. I have a request. I would like you and your committee to take a special interest in both the Johannesburg Summit plan and the third generation of the sustainable development strategies.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    I believe, if the government knows we are together watching it, action will follow, and action is needed on both fronts. To start with, we need answers from the government to some important questions. Regarding the Johannesburg summit, will the government develop a post-Johannesburg action plan, as I called for in my report? If so, by when? What role will the Privy Council Office play and the deputy ministers coordinating committee on sustainable development? How will individual ministers and departments be held accountable? What will happen to the Canadian World Summit secretariat after March 31, 2003? It played a key role in preparing for Johannesburg, but its future is uncertain.

    With respect to the sustainable development strategies, will the government set long-term direction and priorities by painting a clear picture of the type of sustainable economy and society it seeks? Who will drive this, the Privy Council Office, the deputy ministers coordinating committee? We don't know. What is the status of the government's overall federal strategy, and when will it be completed? How will a federal strategy link with the strategies of individual departments, and will Johannesburg be reflected?

    Mr. Chairman, I hope you can help me get answers to these and many other questions, and soon. That will help me shape my future work plan. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on how this can be done, if you wish, and of course, I'm also happy to answer any questions the committee members may have about my last report.

    Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Gélinas, I'd like to give you particular thanks for the initiative you have taken with our committee. We already have a list of speakers.

[English]

    We can start with Mr. Mills,

[Translation]

    followed by Mr. Bigras, Mr. Comartin, Ms. Scherrer and Mr. Reed.

[English]

    Mr. Mills, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome to the committee. We always appreciate your visits to us.

    Listening to your report, I see a repeat of the past. I have only been here 10 years, and I have seen this over and over again. We have something initiated, we have a lot of words, and then we have no plan, no implementation. I would use Kyoto as an example--first identified in 1992 in Rio, then we sign onto something in 1997, and here we are in 2003 allocating $2 billion, but we really don't know how that's going to be spent. So it would seem to me highly unlikely that we're going to a plan post-Johannesburg. You asked the questions, will it be developed and when will it be developed? I have the feeling that's the furthest thing from the department's mind. They're too busy with turf wars--look at the paper last night--between Environment, Transport, and everybody else over who's going to spend $2 billion.

    So do you really have any hope for that? If you did get an action plan, do you really think it would be implemented, based on much of your report? I have another question I'd like to ask you about your choosing of topics to audit, but maybe I could ask you that first one to start.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: First, I'm an optimist.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I used to be too.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I don't have 10 years experience, though.

    It's certainly a question of priorities. This is one of the things we're saying in this opening statement, and I said it in my report last September, I said it to the deputy minister last week. Where are the priorities? I would like to see that clearly written in a document, and then we'll be able to follow up. I'm in the audit business, and I need something on paper that I can track, that I can follow up on and report to you, to Canadians, so that people will be able to judge if things are moving forward or not.

    You make the parallel with Kyoto and the plan of implementation. You're right, it's always the same thing. We need to see the plan first to figure out where we're going. When I talked about the need, specifically at this time, for a clear plan, a federal strategy, and a clear vision of where we want to go, it was because I got the impression that we have reached a plateau and everybody's going everywhere. So we have to make sure the federal government will get its act together and we will know where we're going, so I will be able to report back on whether all the departments are going in the same direction.

    If I can just add one comment to your question, in the past year this committee was not that much involved in SD. I think my request to you is to try. Let's figure out if, with you and me working together, something will change or move faster in the department. If nobody pays attention to the sustainable development strategy and to the Johannesburg commitment to a plan of implementation--it's a clear commitment, no doubt about it--nothing will happen. So let's start right now and not wait 10 years to come to the conclusion that the plan wasn't there and we were not able to track progress and report on progress.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: I guess, Mr. Chair, we're solidly on the commissioner's side and would do anything we could to promote that concept. I think that's what Canadians want, accountability, not just words, and they want to see some action, not just talking about action. So we agree with you.

    Our staff had a briefing from your department as to what you were going to be dealing with this year, and of course, you have highlighted those things, and what you might be dealing with next year. I think you know my concern about getting involved in the air quality issue, particularly in southern Ontario and, most importantly right now, the whole area in British Columbia, with Washington state and the transborder issue. I'm frustrated by the way the federal government has acted there. It seems to me an audit would definitely be necessary to find out why they have shown such inaction. It's really again a bunch a words, and in the British Columbia situation no action at all. They've totally been out of it, and yet the hearings begin again on April 7. There are thousands of people at those hearings. There are medical reasons why we should be concerned. There's a huge amount of CO₂ going to come into our environment. If we really care about that, why is the federal government not involved in that?

    I'd like to know, when you're determining the issues, why that area wouldn't be audited with respect to what the federal government has not done. I think there are others as well--other members would have other examples, including some of the government members.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We have done strategic planning--a word that is often used. We tried, when I joined the Office of the Auditor General, to figure out what were the main issues Canadians cared about and you, as parliamentarians, were interested in. We went all over the country trying to figure out what were the issues we should look at. Of course, we have had to prioritize. The air quality issue was looked at by my predecessor. I will be brief in my answer, and I will ask John Reed to give you an overview of the work we have done there. We are definitely planning to work on what we have called vital resources for the 2005 report, where we're going to look at air, water, and probably another issue, like land or biodiversity. So it's certainly on our radar screen. We will do some follow-up also based on previous work we have done, but each time we are doing work, we make sure there is a health component, and often the health component will be related to air quality or water.

    For your information, I will ask John to give you an overview of the work we have done in that specific area.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. John Reed (Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Specifically on the issue of climate change, there was a full audit by our group in 1998, and that was tabled with this committee and the House. We did a follow-up to that audit and reported on it in 2001. In effect, we've taken a decision internally that climate change is permanently on our radar screen. It's an issue we are going to continue to follow. It may not appear as an individual chapter, it may be in the commissioner's observations, but it's one of those issues we've said is big enough to keep in our sight.

    We've also done a chapter in 2000 dealing with smog, a different kind of air quality issue, obviously. We will be planning a follow-up to that audit in either in 2004 or beyond.

    Different pieces of work we've done, for example, on toxic substances, have also looked at aspects of air quality, because in many cases those substances are released into the air, where they create health impacts.

    If I may very quickly come back to your first question about hope for movement, there has been some movement by departments to create a Johannesburg plan of implementation. They are currently going through the Johannesburg plan of implementation trying to identify which of the items are truly important and need to be worked on. Our understanding is that they want to continue to develop that plan. That might be a good kind of question, if you have the opportunity, to pose to officials, to get an update on how quickly and how far they aim to go with that plan.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bigras, followed by Mr. Comartin, Madame Scherrer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bailey, and the chair.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

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

    Good morning, Ms. Gélinas and Mr. Reed. I was particularly struck by one of the comments in your presentation relating to the sustainable development strategy. In paragraph 13, you say and I quote :

There is no overall direction or support from the centre.

    You are aware, however, of a directive, namely the 1999 Cabinet directive on the environmental assessment of draft policies, plans and programs. This directive clearly stipulates the following and I quote :

Ministers expect that draft policies, plans and programs of departments and organizations will examine, as required, potential environmental affects in accordance with the government's firm commitment to sustainable development.

    How could we ensure that appropriate emphasis is placed on the existing directives with a particular effort being devoted to this? Should we adopt a legislative requirement rather than mere guidance which you consider to be outdated? Is it not necessary for such directives to become binding rather than discretionary? And if they were made mandatory, should it be through a legislative requirement?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Unfortunately, I cannot answer all the questions you've asked. First of all, let us say that strategic environmental assessment is, in my view, a way of achieving sustainable development objectives.

    That being said, this issue clearly emerged in our strategic planning and we are now slowly engaged in this audit that will be made public in the 2004 report.

    As for whether this should be mandatory, as is the case with sustainable development strategies, I think that in view of my report, it will be up to you as members of Parliament to decide on whether or not such matters should be made regulatory. But in relation to the preamble of your question, it is important to emphasize the need to adopt clear policies in order to provide departments with the tools they require to make their sustainable development strategies more effective. Strategic environmental assessment is one thing, sustainable development strategies are something else. They are both aimed at ensuring that Canada makes progress on the way to sustainable development.

    Furthermore, you will note that terms specific to sustainable development have been adopted, whether it be in the guide entitled A Guide to Green Government or in the Leaders Forum in the year 2000, a process in which deputy ministers took part.

    At the present time, the budget is something else. To tell you the truth, it is very hard to make sense of it. The departments must be in a position to know what the government's policy and priorities are and we suggest that this should come from the Privy Council.

    First of all we will have to know what Canada will look like 20 years from now if it embarks on the path of sustainable development. The government must make its vision and its general policy known along with the priorities that will be required to advance in that direction. At the present time, the departments and the Commissioner's Office do not have this information and I'd be surprised if you did.

    We want to know exactly what direction we are taking. Once we know our destination, we can make appropriate preparation to get there within a given period, stopping along the way, as required, to assess the situation. We have to know where we are heading. This is something we do not know at the present time.

    Strategic environmental assessment will also reach a certain plateau if the long-term direction is not established by the federal government. It is our hope that such initiatives will be taken in the coming months rather than the coming years.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

    In chapter 2, dealing with the heritage of contaminated federal sites, you said that a small amount of progress had been achieved. In this respect you note that the little progress made since then shows that it is not devoting enough attention to this problem.

    Do you know that an announcement was made this week of a budget of $175 million over two years? Based on your assessment of the situation and your extensive knowledge of the matter, can you tell us whether this new funding will make it possible at least to settle the problem of sites that represent a risk for human health?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: As the 2002 report mentioned in the chapter dealing with contaminated sites, the federal government has not yet established an order of priority for the sites representing the greatest risks. So before finding out whether this new funding will allow us to tackle head-on the sites on a priority list, the priority list must first be established. Last June, when we finished our audit, this list was not in existence.

    In order to give you an overview of the situation, I would say that class 1 sites, that is sites recognized as representing a risk for health, add up to approximately 800. With reference to these 800 sites, each department has established its list but that does not necessarily mean that the most contaminated site identified by the Department of Justice is the most contaminated of all those that come under the federal government.

    There must be an effort at coordination. Following the recommendations we made to the government, it undertook to establish an order of priority for the sites.

    We also noted that clean-up operations required stable long-term funding. In this respect, I can give the example of the cost of cleaning up a mine, it was set at $200 million. Obviously it cannot be done in two years and will require a lot of money.

    As for the announcement made in the budget of approximately $200 million over two years to clean up certain sites, it is obviously good news. But if we rely on our own calculations and if we add to the annual sum of $90 million that the federal government now devotes to cleaning up sites twice this amount of $90 million over two years, rather than taking 26 years, it will take 15 years to clean up federal sites. It should also be noted that 1,500 sites have not yet been assessed. We are therefore not in a position to know how they compare to the 3,600 sites that have already been identified. Some departments have not even begun to identify their sites. That gives you an idea of the overall situation.

    So it is a positive element but it will certainly not settle the question of long-term funding.

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Comartin, followed by Madame Scherrer.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming, Madam Gélinas and Mr. Reed.

    Have you decided whether you're going to treat assessment of Kyoto as a separate item, or are you going to continue to assess it within the whole sustainable development area?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: What we intend to do is always have some major issue included in the SDS audit work. On the other hand, if we have major issues, we will do an individual follow-up. In some cases we may even decide to go beyond a regular follow-up and do a new audit. It really depends on what we have on hand to audit. If we think about Kyoto, we'll wait to see what the plan of implementation is, and we will audit against that plan. So far we have done one audit and one follow-up on that issue, and depending on the progress, we may decide to do follow-ups on a regular basis. But as John Reed was saying, this is something we will certainly follow on a regular basis.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Given that Kyoto has a specific target for Canada, the 1990 standard less 6%, does that make it easy for you to do an audit on an ongoing basis, not just in 2010 or 2012? Could you do it more easily because there is that specific target?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There is no doubt in my mind that when you have a target and a timeframe, it makes things easier to audit against, but I will maybe have John, who is an audit expert, add to that.

    Mr. John Reed: I think it's an absolute yes, no question.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Would it be of further assistance if we did have a schedule of so many tonnes reduction per year between now and 2010?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The more information we can have, the easier the audit work will be for us, no doubt about it.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Is that a yes?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It is.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

    Mr. Mills, of course, will say this is not an implementation plan at all, what we have received from the government so far, but have you looked at the paper the government has put out under the title of an implementation plan?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: For Kyoto?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No, I haven't.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: So I can't ask you whether you think it's wanting or not.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: You cannot.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not clear on what you want from the committee. A couple of weeks ago we set some priorities for the committee in the coming year, and I think you'll have to give us some more specifics if we're going to go back and revisit what our workload will be. So I'm just going to pose a few questions.

    Are you asking us, for instance, to set a list of priorities for sustainable development? If you're asking us to go to that degree of detail, I'm not at all clear on how far you want us to set specific goals. Let me use as one of the examples you reviewed the number of vehicles the government has that are environmentally friendly or not. I'm just not clear on how much detail you want us to take on.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: What I'm asking you to consider this year is a focus on the Johannesburg implementation and the sustainable development strategies, for the two reasons I gave in my opening statement. There is a momentum, there's a timing, and we have to catch it.

    In more concrete terms, what I would like your committee to consider is hearings with some department officials, so that we can get answers to the questions I raised in my opening statement. Some departments are key players in moving the agenda forward. I'll give you an example. The deputy ministers coordinating committee, with two chairs, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and the Deputy Minister of the Environment, has a lead role to play. I think this committee can really ask them what their game plan is for the coming year.

    Further, it's always helpful for us to have a committee issue a report asking clear questions of departments, and you can easily take the questions I raised myself in my opening statement to the departments, and ask for answers. This is really the most useful thing we can have in hand to shape our work, and then to figure out how we move on the SD agenda or the SDS.

    You can also decide to do some annual monitoring on progress. I do follow-up, and I cannot do follow-up on a yearly basis, so I have to put a few things aside and come back to issues every two years, three years, even five years, but on your side, once a year, or more than that, you can ask departments to give you an update report on progress.

    These are the kinds of things I'm hoping your committee, Mr. Chairman, will consider in the future.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: You've mentioned both the Privy Council Office and the deputy ministers coordinating committee. Do you have a recommendation as to which one of the two should, in fact, provide the leadership?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In our recommendation we made clear that the Privy Council should play that lead role. They have put the responsibility under the DM committee, the ADM committee, and the interdepartmental network on sustainable development strategy. So there are three main committees to do the work we were asking PCO to do.

    The Chair: Madame Scherrer, followed by Mr. Reed.

[Translation]

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

    I've had the opportunity to speak with you on several occasions recently. Whenever the question of sustainable development comes up, I wonder why it does not arouse more passion when it is obviously so sensible and so promising. After all, we are talking about an investment for future generations.

    It seems to me that even politically, it can easily be applied. When a government presents its vision for the next 10 years, in my opinion each of the departments should be thankful that it is setting out the direction for them to take, along with the priorities and methods required.

    I wonder why it is still so difficult to get his idea across to the various departments. Why does there not seem to be any willingness to adopt an approach that takes into account the long-term effects of certain decisions?

    Is it possible that the term "sustainable development" should not be used? Or, in the wake of Mr. Comartin's comments, could we say that we are not being concrete enough in our requirements and our method of operations and making our expectations known to the various departments?

    On the first page of your report, you refer to the Privy Council and a particular committee whose members would have certain powers, including perhaps responsibility for following up on strategies. There is no lack of strategies. Some of them have been adopted by certain departments but is there any one who has the desire or the power to call each of the departments to account for what they have accomplished so far or ask them what they intend to do next year? Has anyone taken on this responsibility so far? Something must be done about this. If people don't go beyond motherhood statements, then nothing is never accomplished.

    Everyone talks about sustainable development. It may be a good subject of conversation but when with someone actually take responsibility for requiring each of the departments to take action? Do we have this kind of power at the present time?

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If my passion and my interest in the subject were contagious, I would tell you to invite me to committees more often but unfortunately it is not as simple as that.

    One person is not enough to advance the concept of sustainable development. We are talking here about a commitment that everyone must make as citizens, as members of Parliament, in your case, and in my case, as Commissioner for the Environment. Sustainable development is not something that we can buy or that we just look at, it is a way of thinking. So it is a matter of bringing about a long-term cultural change, in the various levels of government, the private sector and at the personal level. When we make a decision, we must take into account the various factors.

    Mr. Bigras previously mentioned strategic environmental assessment; this is a way of forcing people to think in terms of sustainable development. I said that it was everyone's responsibility and I would like to give you a simple example of this.

    If every parliamentary committee called upon to examine the work being done by different departments took the time to hold a hearing on the sustainable development strategy, you can be sure that this would bring about a change. It wouldn't be a revolution but it would mean the beginning of a new way of thinking in committees, among parliamentarians and in departments on how this strategy affects policy and what it means in concrete terms. As I said at the beginning of my presentation, it is a tool that I believe in; it is important but almost no one is making use of it or giving it the importance it deserves. So it is up to each of us to ensure progress is made.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'd like to come back to a bit more concrete level. I imagine that to some extent we are concerned about sustainable development. I'm thinking for example of Kyoto.

    We know that cars are one of the major sources of CO₂ emissions. Isn't there someone in the government who should advise the Ministry of Transport, among others, to establish priorities that are in keeping with the Kyoto objectives? In this way, rather than invest in road infrastructure, the ministry could decide to devote this money to the development of a mass transit network.

    Aside from you, required as you are to report on past performance, is there any organization in the government at the present time whose role is to sound the alarm when a decision taken by the Cabinet for example, departs from established objectives? There is a committee of deputy ministers but what does it do?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Basically the answer to your question is no. At the present time, there is no one in the government, as far as we know, who determines general policy and the order of priority among the various departments. I was invited to the deputy ministers committee last Friday and unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to ask them what their mandate and responsibilities were. I hope you will consider seeking this information in the near future.

    We can take the example of Kyoto and climate change as a horizontal issue. This is precisely where the departments are floundering, as I mentioned in my report. In the case of the main horizontal issues, we should expect the departments to work together in a concerted way among themselves. Transport Canada's sustainable development strategy, for example, does take into account elements related to climate change in measuring its results. Similar elements are to be found in the strategy of the Department of Industry.

    Mr. Comartin asked me what the committee might consider in its action plan for the coming year. As far as Kyoto is concerned, you could ask the three or four main departments responsible for furthering the Kyoto issue to tell you how their strategies are linked to the overall objective of greenhouse gas reduction, that would be a concrete example.

    Let me come back to the matter of horizontal issues. Now that each department, as part of the two sustainable development strategies, had some time to reflect on the implications for its mandate, it is now necessary to determine what the horizontal issues are and how they will be taken into account by the departments to ensure that the right hand does not act against the left hand.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Answer this question with a yes or a no. Do you think that yesterday's budget meets your objectives with respect to sustainable development?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I can't answer with a yes or a no but I can say that it is a good start.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: A good start? I see.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Bailey.

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

    I've come to feel, with all the years I have spent since 1976 addressing sustainable development, that the most powerful force on earth is not gravity, it's the status quo. We have a number of difficulties that relate to the status quo. We have a number of political difficulties in the recognition of whether or not we are facing any crises at all. You'll notice the debate in the House between the Alliance and the government over Kyoto. Maybe there is some agreement now, but there was no agreement then.

    Human beings respond to crisis. It was relatively simple in the 1970s to get the greatest voluntary conservation effort ever undertaken with energy conservation in North America, simply because the price of crude oil spiked. Everybody got out of their big cars, and the American government set the speed limit at 55 miles an hour. There was a perceived crisis, and citizens responded, governments responded, and so on. Today the crises we're facing are somehow out there. The polar bears that are starving because there's not enough ice on Hudson Bay and the contaminated sites around Canada are somehow not here, they're there, and these new species that are inadvertently dropped into the Great Lakes that are creating havoc. How do we get the message out to citizens that there is indeed a crisis that has to be dealt with? This is not something you can go to sleep on. Some governments said during the Kyoto debate, why such a hurry, why do we have to do this now, why not leave it for another 10 years? The fact is, it's not a now situation, it's something that should have started 10 years ago. I'm concerned about what role this committee and members can play to get that message out. We have a reluctant bureaucracy, we have all sorts of arguments about possible interference with pet projects, etc. We need your help.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: John Reed would like to answer your question.

    Mr. John Reed: I wanted to share some things with you, because I think there clearly is an opportunity to get that message out. I just want to very briefly share some statistics with you. These came out on the eve of the Johannesburg summit, published by the United Nations environment program. You can decide whether we have a crisis or not.

    Some 11,000 species in this planet are at risk of extinction, and that's almost 10,000 times higher than the natural background rate. We're going to lose more than 30% of the coral reefs within 30 years. One-fifth of the world's population now live in extreme poverty, that is, on less than a dollar day. Twenty million people have already died from AIDS, and at least another 70 million are expected to die within a single generation. Two billion people don't have access to safe food. Some 1.1 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. Within a generation, they think, two-thirds of the world are going to face extreme water shortage. We're losing an area the size of Nepal every year in natural forest cover. In 2001 we had a record size ozone hole over the Antarctic. CO₂ concentrations have gone up over 30% in two centuries. And all that is with 6 billion people on the planet, and within half a century, they think, we're headed to 11 billion people consuming the same resources and living in the same space. If that's not a crisis, I don't know what is.

    Why now? What can this committee do? I think you have to make the jump to the Johannesburg summit itself, because at least it's an attempt by the countries of the world to lay out an agenda. It deals with issues like poverty reduction, access to drinking water, protection of our oceans, fisheries, forests. These are the things that are in there. I think what this committee can do to help is find out what the government will do about those commitments and tackle those different issues. I don't know if that's a crisis or not, but it certainly is in some people's minds.

    Mr. Julian Reed: You are absolutely right. It's a crisis that has a Doomsday projection, as a matter of fact. We're still faced with arguments, even in this House of Commons, about the beauties of CO₂ and how wonderful it is. We have to get over that somehow. This should cut across all party lines. We should recognize that we are indeed in a crisis. If we could all stand together, I think we could get somewhere.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I was invited a couple of weeks ago to testify before the U.K. environmental audit committee of the House in March to talk about what is going on in our country and how I want to hold the government accountable for the Johannesburg plan of implementation. This committee, which is the equivalent of yours, is doing something to try to figure out how things will be dealt with in the U.K., how the government will respond to this plan of implementation and SD in general. I have extended the invitation to this committee--the information was sent to the clerk. We may have you on board too to come and testify in front of this committee about how you see a parliamentarian's role in moving the agenda forward.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bailey, followed by Mr. Tonks, followed by the chair.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    You are very brave to come before a committee at this time in many ways, particularly with the topics you have raised.

    I would just like to refer to Mr. Reed's comment about the seventies, when they lowered the speed rate in the U.S. I made a trip at the time, and the joke around there was that one group of people who were most negative towards that were the undertakers; they were saving too many lives. It was true. You have some of this with Kyoto and in the topic we are discussing.

    Mr. Manley, in his budget--and I have it right here; I'll never forget it, because I read it twice--said, as he travelled around Canada, there was one thing that was constant, no matter where he travelled, that Canadians wanted nothing but sound reporting and accountability. His last statement in that paragraph was, “Accountability is the cornerstone of this budget.” The witnesses before us today have a tremendous job. How do you account, for instance, for the amount of money designated in the budget for Kyoto when it can go off in 20 different directions? How do you account for a project in which you have provincial, and maybe municipal, authorities working with it?

    I want to put one positive thing in there, I don't want to deal with just negative things. I know people don't understand totally what Kyoto is all about, but I do know this. Whether I'm on the airplane or out in the public, it is very public. People are beginning to look at themselves individually for what they can do. Nobody here can take credit for that necessarily, but it is enough of a topic and there's enough going on, and it's positive. We have negatives, we have extremes on both sides. I was watching television the other day, and David Suzuki hinted that maybe it wasn't a good idea to spend money on highways to fix them up, because too many people would travel and travel faster. That's one extreme. The other extreme is, this has always been going on, we can't stop it anyway. The difficulty in situations like this is that when you have strong emotions and factual material bumping against each other, emotions always win. That's a role, I think, this committee can play, a role that would make your work a whole lot easier.

    You mentioned topics. What would you suggest as an in-depth study for this committee at this time?

  (1200)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Can I get back to you with a good answer later on? I'll take note of this question.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: All right. Thank you.

    In conclusion, then, to audit a report on any different assignment or any problem area we're working on, not so that this committee can understand it, not so that the MPs can understand, you would have to put it in language that is readable by the general public. So many times that does not take place. If you really want to sell what we're trying to do with the environment, put it in--should I say this?--grade 8 language. I'm not making an insult to the public. Put it in language we understand.

    That's my final comment. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, thank you.

    Thank you for your deputation this morning. You've certainly give us something to think about.

    I'd like to pursue my line of questioning in the same spirit as Mr. Bailey. Mr. Manley, in Mr. Bailey's observation, said accountability is part of the budget process. What I have found in my two years here is that because the organization is so large, there is a real problem of corporate memory. What recommendations come out of various budgets? What are the allocations to green programs through the FCM to the St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, clean-up strategies, risk management of the clean-up of mines and contaminated sources, our adherence to probably a half a dozen international agreements that we have been part of on biodiversity, species at risk, sustainable development, water quality, and so on? My observation is that we have a real problem with corporate memory. It's like layer upon layer of approaches all spirited by the same desire, but are we evaluating the impact? I've had some experience with comprehensive auditing, which is a continuous analysis of those various activities over time, with a running commentary on how well you're doing and how far you have to go.

    This is a wonderful opportunity, and you used the term oversight, but when it comes to oversight within the parliamentary system, as compared to oversight within the Privy Council Office or within the round table of deputy ministers, you've indicated there's a gap. They may feel they're accountable, but who are they accountable to? What is the relationship of oversight?

    Mr. Chairman, you have been attempting to develop an agenda for this committee, and my question to the commissioner is, could you develop a methodology for this committee that would deal with corporate memory and instead of looking backwards, look forwards? We have a budget that outlines goals. Could part of the methodology be to use that budget to target the issues of aboriginal water quality, mines, sources of pollutants, toxicity clean-up, water quality in respect of the general issue of ecosystem protection, and the various areas in your report where you have said that we are failing? I'm not talking about micro-managing this organization, but about a methodology that would be similar to the Johannesburg implementation strategy, would define our role, and would bring us into lockstep with the policy-setting responsibility we have and the monitoring and oversight opportunity you've presented to us? Could you help us to develop a methodology? Could you make recommendations with respect to who should develop that methodology? Should it be the Privy Council Office, should it be the round table, should it be the Department of the Environment, or all the departments? Could you help us to do that?

  (1205)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We have already made recommendations in the past clearly highlighting who should do what, and in areas where we weren't sure we have asked the government to clarify roles and responsibilities. So that's one thing.

    To get back to the methodology you're asking for, I may make your life easier than that, as I intend myself, based on this year's budget, to follow up on a yearly basis where the money goes and how progress is made through these specific commitments. This is something I will commit myself to do on a regular basis, starting probably next year or the year after, to allow time for the government to implement plans and spend some of that money, because at the moment we have intentions, but we don't know clearly where the money will go. This is part of my job, and I will report back to this committee and to parliamentarians and let you know what progress was made and how the money was spent.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: We now have Mr. Szabo, then the chair, and then a quick second round.

    Mr. Szabo, welcome to the committee.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for their inspiring presentation.

    I have always thought productivity in this place could be improved by making sure every meeting built on the last meeting and we moved the file forward. It appears from your statements today that this is your position and that the government's position is still unknown on a broad variety of very serious indictments, quite frankly. In the audit report there is a declaration that your report embraces the principles of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and among those principles is that the report of the auditors would be discussed with management, or in this case with the affected parties, and that their responses would be part of the report. I didn't notice the government's response to the various items you've raised in the report, or, in fact, in your statement today, and I'm wondering if you do have the response of the government to each point you have raised, so that this committee can be aware of where its starting point is.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I understand correctly your question, I will say yes, because as with the Auditor General, for each of the recommendations we make in a chapter we have response from one department or more than one, depending who is responsible for that. So we have that every time in our report. Is that the purpose of your question?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. Maybe John has something to add.

    Mr. John Reed: For recommendations, there was always a response by the government, and they're printed in the chapters, directly following the recommendations. As part of our audit process, after we have completed our examination work and we've made a first draft of the chapter, that is normally shared with the departments, with the request that they confirm the factual accuracy of what's in there. When they have signed off, in effect, they have agreed that we've got the facts right. So we don't get a point-by-point response for the observations. What's printed is only the response to the recommendations, but in effect, they have agreed with the factual accuracy of our reports by virtue of our sign-off process.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Is there other information, representations, reports, studies, or whatever, that has been submitted by the government to you in support of their responses, and is it available to this committee?

    Mr. John Reed: I'm not sure what your question is. As we're collecting information through the course of the audit, we often get briefs and submissions from the departments as to what their position is, what activity they're undertaking, or what results they've achieved, and those become part of our audit file. To the extent that those are public documents, they can certainly be made available to you. When they're not public documents, it's a little trickier.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay.

    Finally, with regard to today's report, is the government aware of your statements today and have they given their view with regard to the assertions you've made in this report?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There is nothing in our opening statement that was not in the report. It's just a different way to present a couple of things we consider important. They haven't seen the opening statement. It is your privilege to hear first what I have to say. Now it's a public document, and if ever the committee asks them to answer some of these questions, they will have an opportunity to respond to what I have raised.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Commissioner, in essence, in your presentation today you are asking, as you put it actually on page 4, for answers from the government in two directions. I'm trying now to paraphrase what you have put on paper. The first direction has to do with the Johannesburg summit, and it is a very legitimate desire. You want to have something put in place soon in order to avoid a last-minute patchwork three or four years from now, when Johannesburg Plus 5 will take place. Therefore, it is very good of you to come forward and send out a signal to indicate that you want the government to begin to think about the implications emanating from last year's event, in anticipation of the event five years down the stream. As in the past--and this is what members of the committee, I'm sure, appreciate--there is a follow-up five years after the summit. The commissioner wants to make some arrangements so that certain important questions are asked, and they are set out on page 4 and page 5. As you indicated, each committee could be a catalyst, by beginning to ask certain questions, and we will have an opportunity, as members of this committee, next week, when the Minister of the Environment appears before us.

    Then we come to item 19 on your presentation: you want answers from the government on sustainable development strategy. My first reaction when I read that was, well, how can we be helpful here, because what the commissioner really needs is to convince the Privy Council clerk to organize a three-day seminar for cabinet, so that they can start thinking about it and come back with some long-term propositions? We, as a committee, cannot provide that thinking to her. Nevertheless, we certainly can at least turn on the pressure with cabinet on your behalf, if that is what you have in mind, and find ways, hopefully, to trigger some thinking that would culminate in a gathering by the executive to think about the strategies on sustainable development.

    And this is where my questions come. In order to do that, we need answers to some basic questions. Are you and your people preparing an audit on the fishery, for instance, so that we know whether we are taking out more than the resource can regenerate? Are we on a sustainable path with the fishery? When that answer is known, the political system can begin to think about sustainable development. Are you in a position to provide an audit on forestry, so that we know whether we are within the sustainability of that resource? Is it possible for your people to produce an audit on water consumption, so as to get hold of some instruments for discussion? Are you auditing, as we discussed in the past, or are you planning to audit the Department of Finance? Because we all know the Department of Finance taxation policy can generate sustainability or unsustainability, depending on the way it designs its taxation system. Are you in a position to audit Treasury Board and its decisions?

  (1215)  

    I'm not asking you to do all these things, I'm only illustrating the areas where we need some kind of tangible conclusions, in addition to the ones that you give us in paragraph 3, which are very striking, so that we can engage the government along the lines you would like us to act on. So could you please comment?

  (1220)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The answer to your question is, yes, we're ready to audit things that we think are of significance for parliamentarians, no doubt about that. But we already are doing such audits, and no one should underestimate sustainable development strategies, because it can easily start there. You can ask, if you want to, the Department of Finance what the commitments or the objectives in its own strategy mean. How does it factor into some decisions made in that department? Fisheries and Oceans has a strategy too, and there are a lot of commitments there that you may want to look at.

    So the strategies are there, we are auditing the strategies, we are going to report to you on a regular basis on results, and we may do some audits that will feed you on some other areas. At the moment we are auditing against sustainable transportation, and the Department of Transport, of course, is involved in that. So we're going to report back to you a couple months from now on what the government is doing in moving towards sustainable transportation.

    If I may come back to the Privy Council and your first comment, the Privy Council may have thought of having a three-day seminar, and if the Clerk of the Privy Council can come here and testify--you may have heard that he is planning to do that--you can make a proposal that the Privy Council may consider. We're trying here to be proactive, so if we can push some agencies and departments to do something more proactive, why not?

    The Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

    We now have a second round, and we begin with Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much.

    Let me carry on with my first question. In the Fraser Valley there's a crisis--Mr. Reed talks about responding to a crisis. Washington state is planning to build one power plant soon, and there are ten others on the drawing board. They're building them on the border with British Columbia, the second most polluted air-shed in the whole country, and they're going to put overhead power lines down the centre of Abbotsford, because they're not allowed in Washington state. They're going to provide us with the pollution, the overhead power lines, and they're going to get the jobs and the profit, and California is getting the energy. That's the story.

    The point is that the Canadian government hasn't done anything. They didn't appear before the hearings in Washington state, they're not appearing in the hearings in Abbotsford. They're about to begin again. They have allowed intervener status to the Province of British Columbia, because that's obviously where it's at, and they've allowed the Province of Alberta to have intervener status, because they're supporting the Washington bid because they hope to sell them the gas. I'm not allowed intervener status, because I don't live there, and yet I'm going to have intervener status, because I'm filling in for someone else. That's the kind of lack of involvement there is. Yet these people have huge increases in health problems, it's all documented, there are thousands of people appearing at rallies, and the Canadian government is doing nothing.

    It seems to me that there is a real crisis, that the Auditor General should be saying, damn it, why isn't the Canadian Government involved in this? The British Columbia government has asked them to be. So my question is, why aren't you auditing that? That's been going on now for years. So I'm asking you again, why not an audit, instead of some of these general terms?

    Second, with Kyoto, it's $1.7 billion, and already in the paper today we see that there are four ministries all saying they're going to have their hand in the cookie jar to spend that money. Will you be auditing where the $1.7 billion that was allocated yesterday goes specifically?

  (1225)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The answer is yes to your second question.

    For the other one, we have our own action plan for the coming years. It doesn't mean at some point we may not consider something else. If I'm right, you already used the petition process to get some information about that. You may come back again. You can send us as many petitions as you want, so if you want to push forward the investigation in some way, you can use it again and ask for more specific answers.

    Mr. Bob Mills: If we get 10,000 petitions, will that be better than one?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Not at all. For me there's no difference between 10,000 and one. It's the one with the questions that will be answered anyway by the department.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Comartin, followed by Madame Scherrer.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to go back to one of the points made by the chair about an audit on fisheries and the whole issue of sustainability there and on forestry. Is there one being planned on forestry, and is there one being planned on fishery, as I have reason to believe there is? If so, is it going to take into account the status of the fish farms on both the west coast and the east coast, and when would we get it?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I told you that for 2005 we were planning to work on vital resources. In 2006 we plan to look at natural resources, and forestry is included in that.

    Again, you can use the petition process at any time to get answers to your questions, and we have started auditing some of the responses we got through the petition process. This is also a way to have things you may have on your agenda that you consider of interest for Canadians move forward. So use the petition process.

    With respect to fisheries, I don't do a lot of work myself in the fishery area, because we have a group within the Office of the Auditor General that is devoted to that. Nevertheless, we work in collaboration, so the component of the fisheries will be looked at through someone from my staff working with the fisheries group people. There are some follow-ups coming on, if I'm right, for 2004 on fisheries and some follow-up on aquaculture and fish farm audit work that we did in 2001. Our colleague the Assistant Auditor General, Ron Thompson, will be delighted to give you an update on that if you want it. We have done a lot of work on fisheries.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Scherrer, followed by Mr. Tonks.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you.

    You made several references to the system of petitions. I know how important it is for parliamentarians to meet committees, to find people in the Cabinet who are sensitized to such issues, to apply the concept and to require people to react to this concept of sustainable development.

    I think that we should rely more on social pressure. The petitions process, mentioned on a number of occasions, would appear to be more or less well-known but infrequently used, except by very well-informed environmental groups. We get the impression that in our constituencies, the average citizen knows very little about this process.

    Do you think there is any advantage in making it better known, not only to the groups with a heightened awareness, but also to schools, young people and the public at large so that through their questions and their insistence on the subject, they could create greater awareness in a department?

    You say that it doesn't matter much whether there is 1 or 10,000 questions, because the question remains the same if it is properly formulated. But in terms of social pressure, 10,000 questions on the same subject mean that someone is going to have to start working on the issue and realize that it is a priority.

    In addition to calling upon parliamentarians, and providing them with more in-depth information, do you have any way of making people aware of the petition process? We get thick documents and have huge amounts of material to read every day. Is there an easier way of getting the message across to people so that they can also make use of this exceptional process?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The petition process was created at the same time as my position, that is in 1995. Two years ago we received about 20 petitions a year. My colleagues informed me that last year petitions were now arriving at the rate of two a week. So things have obviously been evolving. With the means at our disposal, we have been successful in making this petition process known. There is still a lot to be done. In the speeches and the presentations that I and my staff make, we make a point of mentioning petitions. We can see that this is starting to be successful because of the increasing numbers we receive.

    Nonetheless, you are quite right, and that is why as part of our communication plan, we have decided to contact local organizations, schools and university professors to talk about this process that has been designed for citizens. I personally am responsible for its management but in actual fact, this is the instrument available to citizens to find out what is happening in the federal government apparatus.

  (1230)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Madame Scherrer.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to follow up in search of this methodology. The commissioner has given her future approach to monitoring sustainable development strategies on the last page of the appendix. She has outlined very carefully an accountability that she is going to follow. Mr. Chairman, you raised the issue with respect to how to plot sustainable development in fisheries, forestry, water conservation, and so on. I get back to my corporate memory thing here. Could the methodology not be discussed with the Privy Council or the deputy ministers? Your auditing process, I would suggest, isn't an audit, but a monitoring mechanism, an accountability mechanism, in relation to principles. Could you allocate the responsibility to the committees, fisheries, natural resources, on the consistent basis of your framework? Could you take that up, so that each committee would have oversight and the responsibility to receive a report from you and apply your methodology to making them accountable in all the various areas, maybe starting with the budget, for example, and aboriginal issues, water quality, mines, clean-up, species at risk issues? This would be to look at making the committee structure more a part of the oversight, with your role and the Privy Council's role, in tightening that up.

    Mr. John Reed: I think that's an excellent suggestion, but I'm not quite sure how to make it happen. It would probably be more than one party that would have to make that happen, but the notion of different parliamentary committees providing oversight for the kinds of subject areas in their domain I think is excellent, and it would allow that periodic reporting and accountability back to parliamentarians. The kind of work the commissioner has in mind in the future could certainly serve those committees, because we want to begin to track progress over the long term against a consistent set of issues. It would be a very useful suggestion that this committee could consider.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I think we should follow up on that.

    Mr. Chairman, can I just make one observation? With respect to the question you raised as to what Canada is doing to promote the world summit implementation strategy, in the budget there's an allocation of $17 million for following through on Canada's commitments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. That's a statement, that's an allocation, but who's going to follow up on it? What does it mean? It's that kind of thing that your report is attempting to address. It's one thing to craft words, it's another thing to construct programs and make them effective.

    Mr. John Reed: Mr. Chairman, quickly on the methodology, I think another part of this puzzle that could be addressed is the issue of reporting by departments. This would clearly have to involve the Treasury Board. We have for several years now commented on the current state of reporting by departments against their sustainable development commitments. It has been weak, at best, and it's partly, I think, because there are just too many things in the strategies to report on in a coherent way, but it is also because there hasn't been as much direction to departments about what kind of information parliamentarians need and could find useful. That would be a very good discussion to have with the Treasury Board: how can we improve reporting by departments against a suite of issues and indicators? That's an issue we've had difficulty getting progress on with the Treasury Board.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Well, that's a good way to conclude this session. Thank you very much for your appearance today. I thank the committee for having engaged all of us in a good discussion. As a suggestion of perhaps limited value, you may want one of these days to invite Mr. Himelfarb for lunch to sound him out on item 19, or maybe on both items, 18 and 19. This committee will have an opportunity next Tuesday to seek some of the answers to the questions you are posing in your paper, because the Minister of the Environment will appear before this committee. Certainly, we'll be guided by your suggestions. We may come back to this subject at the appropriate time.

    And we look forward to your appearance before this committee on April 1, after your appearance before the British parliamentary committee to which you have been invited. Madam Gélinas earlier outlined an opportunity for a small Canadian delegation to appear before the committee. If there are members of the opposition or of the governing party interested in that event, it takes place on March 26 in London. The commissioner is kindly hosting that particular delegation to appear before the appropriate British committee to discuss long-term sustainability issues. If members of the committee wish to indicate to the clerk that they're interested, it should be done in a very short time, because arrangements need to be made fairly soon. The appropriate expenditures will have to be approved by this committee, so as to seek the blessing of the Liaison Committee.

    Thank you very much. This meeting stands adjourned.