PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 31, 2002

º

1600

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CA))

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi (Associate Deputy Comptroller General, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat)

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ)

º

1610

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Tedd Wood (Director, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Roberta Santi

º

1615

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Roberta Santi

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Tonks

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

º

1620

Mr. Tonks

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

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

Mr. Tonks

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. John Reed

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Finlay

Mr. John Reed

º

1630

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Reed

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Reed

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

º

1635

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Tedd Wood

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

º

1640

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Phinney

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Phinney

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Phinney

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Phinney

Mr. John Reed

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

º

1645

Mr. Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

º

1650

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Ms. Beth Phinney

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

º

1655

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

Mr. John Reed

Ms. Phinney

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

»

1700

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Finlay

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

»

1705

Mr. Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Comartin

Mr. John Reed

Mr. Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

»

1710

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

»

1715

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

»

1720

The Chair

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Santi

Mr. Lee McCormack (Executive Director, Results Management and Reporting, Treasury Board Secretariat)

The Chair

Mr. Lee McCormack

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

»

1725

The Chair

Mr. John Reed

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Bryden

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 037

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 31, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CA)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    First, my apologies for being a little late, but we had some important business in the House. We had to deal with that before we could come over here.

    The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), are consideration of chapter 2, “Sustainable Development Management Systems”, and chapter 3, “Reporting on Sustainable Development: Is the System Working?”, of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in the December 2001 report.

    We have witnesses today from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I believe this is their first time before this committee. We welcome Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Accompanying her are Mr. John Reed, principal, and Mr. Tedd Wood, director.

    From the Treasury Board Secretariat we have Roberta Santi, Associate Deputy Comptroller General, comptrollership branch; Mr. Lee McCormack, executive director, results management and reporting; and Bev Levere, sustainable development adviser, economic sector.

    We had anticipated having representation from the Privy Council, but they advised my office this morning that due to unforeseen circumstances that developed at a late date, they are unable to be with us today.

    Without further ado, we will now turn it over to the opening statement by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, CA): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Grewal.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, if I'm permitted, I would like to make a motion before we really go to the debate. I'm sorry my voice is not very clear, but I hope you will pardon me.

    I move that the public accounts committee recommend that an Order of the House be issued for copies of all detailed expense account information from ministers and their exempt political staff, and that the information shall be tabled in the House and permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grewal. You gave me a copy of that in both official languages.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order, if I may.

    The Chair: Just a moment.

    We do not have a quorum, Mr. Grewal, therefore I cannot accept it. There will be no debate on your motion. However, I will accept it as a notice of motion, and we'll bring it forward at a future date.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Is the notice of motion in both official languages?

[English]

    The Chair: It's in both official languages.

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: May we have a copy?

[English]

    The Chair: We will have a copy distributed to you. As I said, it will not be debated today because we do not have quorum, but I accept it as a notice of motion. It will be coming up at a future time.

    Madame.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    With me are my colleagues, John Reed and Tedd Wood.

    The position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was created by Parliament in 1995, through amendments to the Auditor General Act. These amendments obligated federal departments to prepare sustainable development strategies, and gave the commissioner responsibility to report to Parliament on the progress made by departments in implementing their strategies. Despite the importance attached to sustainable development by Parliament, years of work by the office have led me to question the federal government's ability and resolve to adopt sustainable development as a governing priority. I am concerned that this is only a paper exercise.

    To me, sustainable development offers a way to ensure that current and future Canadians have a sustainable way of life, including a prosperous economy, vibrant social systems, a clean environment, and good personal health and well-being. I believe the stakes are quite high if the government fails to deliver on its promises.

    What exactly am I concerned about? First, managerial capacity for sustainable development in departments is low. For several years now, we have promoted well-functioning management systems as being critical for sustained success, yet only four of the sixteen departments we audited this year have systems that are fully sufficient to manage and meet the commitments in their strategies. In too many departments, senior management leadership and commitment are missing. As well, a Government of Canada perspective is lacking. There is no common management approach or timetable for implementation. Most critically, a central agency oversight to guide and hold departments accountable for their sustainable development programs is lacking.

[Translation]

    My second major concern is that reporting by departments is so poor that it inhibits Parliament's ability to hold departments to account for their progress, or lack of it. In chapter 3 of our report, we asked the question “is the system working?” The quick answer is NO! It's broken and it needs fixing.

    Part of the problem is that weak management systems impede effective tracking and reporting of results. But the causes are broader than that. There are concerns about the very nature of the reporting Guidelines, such as the half-page limit for sustainable development reporting provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat. Moreover, three-quarters of departments don't fully comply with the Guidelines that have been provided. There is no enforcement.

    Perhaps most problematic is the quality of the reporting. The deficiencies we found include disregarding gaps, using vague information and most critically, reporting more on activities than on results.

    We have been working on solutions to these problems and would be pleased to describe these to members of this committee.

    Mr. Chairman, at the heart of my findings are issues of leadership and priority. For Canada to become a sustainable society, leadership from the federal government is needed. Commitments made in the departmental strategies need to be real, to be results-based, and to be kept. And progress needs to be reported accurately. The Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat need to strengthen the present governance structure.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, our work to date has focused on whether the government has laid a solid foundation for future success in sustainable development. We will seek to determine whether the government is making genuine progress in this regard. Currently, we see too much business as usual dressed up in sustainable clothing. This will not lead to real change as Parliament intended.

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, in response to the issues and recommendations we've raised in chapters 2 and 3, we would like to see the following: greater central agency leadership in dealing with the government priority--this one in particular--and improved reporting to Parliament by departments in implementing their sustainable development strategies, along with clearer responses from the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office on exactly how and when they will implement our recommendation.

    To the extent that members of your committee share our concerns, the support and involvement of your committee will significantly help in our work.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We look forward to your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Gélinas.

    Now we'll turn to the opening statement by Roberta Santi, the Associate Deputy Comptroller General of the Treasury Board.

    I see you have a fairly long statement here. Normally we limit it to five minutes. I understand the clerk would have advised you that there's a five-minute limit on opening statements. Would you prefer to summarize your remarks, and we can append your written remarks to the minutes?

    Ms. Roberta Santi (Associate Deputy Comptroller General, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): I think I can do most of this in five minutes.

    The Chair: Okay, then I will let you go.

    Ms. Roberta Santi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to hear the views of the committee today and to discuss the issues raised by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in chapters 2 and 3 of her 2001 report.

[Translation]

    With me are two Treasury Board secretariat colleagues, Lee McCormack, Executive Director, Results Management and Reporting and Bev Levere, Sustainable Development Advisor.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, in 1995 the government confirmed its commitment to sustainable development by amending the Auditor General Act. The legislation requires departments to table in Parliament sustainable development strategies every three years. Legislation created the position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development with a mandate to monitor and report on these strategies.

    Chapters 2 and 3 of the commissioner's report focus primarily on the first round of strategies tabled in 1997 and on the departmental performance reports for the period ending March 31, 2000. The commissioner concludes that we need to improve performance reporting and management processes, and we agree. Since that time, with the second round of strategies tabled last February, and with a new set of performance reports tabled last November, we continue to move up the learning curve, and we aim to make continuous improvement.

    The secretariat has three key roles in relation to sustainable development--a departmental role, a collaborative role, and a role as the management board.

    In February 2001, along with 29 other departments and agencies, the secretariat tabled its second sustainable development strategy. Like many departments, in the years between the tabling of the first and second strategies we have learned a great deal.

[Translation]

    In 2000, the Secretariat appointed a senior-level Sustainable Development Champion. We have now adopted a departmental framework that monitors, delivers, and makes adjustments on sustainable development commitments. And we are building sustainable development principles into the policies and programs that we introduce in support of modern management practices across government.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Our second role is one of collaboration. The success of the initiative is advanced through the commitment and leadership of a number of departments. We work closely with the Privy Council Office, as it increases departmental awareness of the priority that the government has placed on sustainable development; with Environment Canada, as it undertakes its role of leading and coordinating sustainable development efforts across government; with Public Works and Government Services Canada, as it coordinates sustainable development practices in government operations; and with Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada, in their leadership role on the climate change initiative.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a role to play as the government's management board. As you know, departments and agencies are accountable to Parliament, through their ministers, for managing and reporting on their programs. In support of this accountability to Parliament, the secretariat helps departments to continually improve their management practices and controls. We share the view put forward by the commissioner in her report that departments with sound management practices are best able to manage and report on all programs and initiatives, including those related to sustainable development.

[Translation]

    Our efforts to improve public management are grounded in our new management framework, Results for Canadians-a framework that calls for citizen-focused services, results-based achievement, responsible spending, and the application of sound public service values in all our work.

[English]

    That is why the secretariat encourages a management culture that affords greater flexibility to departments to achieve meaningful results, a culture wherein central agencies assist departments through facilitation and leadership rather than control.

    As I noted during my appearance before this committee last October, we recently introduced a number of management tools and policies that will help to address the issues raised by the commissioner and support management practices. Our policies for internal audit and evaluation and our integrated risk management framework are examples of this. We're also extending our modern controllership initiative government-wide, so that many more departments are examining their management practices and controls and putting in place needed improvements.

    Last July the secretariat introduced new guidelines for departmental performance reporting, which encouraged departments to focus on strategic outcomes and to tell their own performance story in a balanced and credible way. Our new complementary guidelines for reporting on plans and priorities stress the importance of making the link between planning and reporting.

    We are now assessing the latest departmental performance reports in order to draw out best practices and to identify how the secretariat might concentrate its efforts to strengthen departmental reporting in all areas, including sustainable development.

[Translation]

    As well, we are working with the Office of the Auditor General on a results-based management capability model and accompanying guide. This work will help managers to strengthen their strategic analysis, planning for results, implementation of programs, policies or initiatives, monitoring, measuring, and evaluating of achievements, reporting on the results achieved, and learning and adjusting.

[English]

    We will explore ways to incorporate linkages to sustainable development in this important model. The sustainable development approach requires the integration of economic, environmental, and social considerations in building a high quality of life for Canadians.

    Last December the president of the Treasury Board reported on 19 societal indicators in Canada's Performance 2001 report, the first national report of this type. Many of you may actually have seen this document. This report represents a major shift in reporting on results, and outlines the interconnectedness of the government's economic, social, and environmental goals.

    A critical element of improved departmental reporting is the engagement of parliamentary committees--i.e., their use and examination of the reports provided to them by departments. We plan to meet with parliamentarians this spring in order to obtain their views on both Canada's Performance 2001 and our new approach to strengthening departmental performance reports. Any views committee members may have on how best to undertake these consultations would be most appreciated.

[Translation]

    So, Mr. Chairman, by using the Results for Canadians framework to focus on an agenda of supporting improved management practices across government, by delivering on our departmental strategy, and by collaborating with other departments and agencies, we believe we will continue to demonstrate real progress in advancing sustainable development for all Canadians.

    I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Santi. I think that was closer to eight minutes than five, but that's all right.

[Translation]

    Mr. Desrochers, please. You have eight minutes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ) Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I took a quick look at the statement of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Once again, I note that the federal government is focusing much more on the technical and administrative aspects of the environment and sustainable development, rather than on content.

    How long have you been in your position, Ms. Gélinas?

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: For a little more than a year and a half.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When you took up your new position, were you entrusted with a very specific mandate? Did you have some leeway in making your recommendations?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In fact, I have all the leeway I  need to make recommendations; it is clearly a part of my mandate to report to Parliament on departments' progress in the area of sustainable development. It is clearly stipulated in my mandate that I must in a regular and continuous way report to Parliament on the progress the government makes in the area of sustainable development.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You seemed to say, Ms. Gélinas, that since this position was created in 1995 the comments and recommendations you and your predecessors have made never found a receptive audience.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I do not seem to say, I do indeed say in my report that there has been some progress on that point. Progress has been slow in particular with regard to the reporting issue. On the issue of departmental progress concerning sustainable development in 1999, three departments complied with Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines. Last year, there were four. This represents 25% of all departments. At that rate neither Parliament nor Canadians will see very rapid progress.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When you refer to guidelines, Ms. Gélinas, is it Treasury Board that asks departments to submit the reports you recommend?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Quite so. This is part of what are known in English as DPR, that is to say departmental performance reports . It is clearly specified that departments must prepare a half- page report on their progress with regard to the action plan they devised, which is contained in the sustainable development strategies.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You said four. Out of how many?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: This year there were four out of 28, and last year, there were three. This brings us up to seven out of 28.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Could you identify these people who cooperated?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Certainly. My colleague will be able to give you this information.

    Mr. Tedd Wood (Director, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development): Mr. Chairman, may I add some clarification? Four departments have a management system, and seven complied with the guidelines.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, while my colleague is looking up the information, I will add something. There are two chapters we are looking at here. Firstly, departments were to put in place a management system. That is one thing. We say there are four who complied with all of the components of the management system.

    As for the reporting requirement—this is what your question was about—there are now seven departments in compliance. We agree that there are a certain number of criteria which my colleague will be able to explain. The departments we are referring to complied with all the requirements of Treasury Board. There are others who have only met some of the requirements.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: At the outset, Ms. Gélinas, Treasury Board would have had to provide some very specific guidelines on this. Were you given explanations when you did your audits as to why the departments were so slow to meet the Treasury Board guidelines, which means that at this time, the system is working very poorly?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I will invite you to direct part of your question to my colleagues on the left, but as far as we are concerned, I can say that out of all the audits we performed, two elements really stand out. The departments who put in place a good management system produce or seem to produce, on paper, good performance reports. I should add that we have not yet performed results-based audits. So that is one thing.

    The second point is that we are realizing that the more upper management is involved in devising sustainable development strategies, the greater the efforts made by the departments.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Santi, can you explain why your departments are so slow to respond to the guideline you have provided to encourage them to really do their work as requested by the Commissioner of the Environment?

[English]

    Ms. Roberta Santi: I should first explain that the departmental performance reports are tabled annually by departments in Parliament. The reports in question here covered the fiscal year 1999-2000, and they were tabled in the House subsequent to that.

    We have since then had some new departmental performance reports that were tabled in 2001. There were some changes made between the 2000 report and the 2001 report. During that period of time, we also issued new guidelines for the preparation of performance reports, because we agree with the commissioner that we need to do a couple of things on this front. We need to improve management processes, reporting in the departmental performance reports, and the overall quality of reporting to Parliament.

    In the context of the 82 performance reports that were tabled in 2001, we have noticed that four departments that did not report in the period ending March 2000 have now reported in the departmental performance report for 2001. In fact, they have given some fairly extensive information on the strengthening of their management processes. These include the RCMP, which have now introduced dedicated staff to meet--

º  (1615)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: But how many departments responded?

[English]

    Ms. Roberta Santi: We have had reports from 32 ministries.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thirty- two?

[English]

    Ms. Roberta Santi: This is an increase over previous reports. We don't see a fast rate of progress from year to year, but four more reports were provided over the year before. So some progress is being made.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, I think Madame Gélinas would like to say something.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Does this reply make you optimistic as you face the next few months, the next few years?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In fact, it is not up to me to judge whether a response is optimistic or not. What I am mentioning is that the departments must report on their progress. In light of the audits we have performed until now, there are a lot of weaknesses in the reports that have been submitted. Some do not even prepare reports. Really, I would say there are only seven departments that stand out from the lot.

    You asked me earlier, Mr. Chairman,and if I can complete my reply to your colleague, I would say that the departments that stand out are the following: Industry Canada, National Defence, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada,and the Department of the Solicitor General.

    As for the criteria the departments must follow, these are clearly specified in the Treasury Board guideline, and that is not at all what we are questioning; that is clear. It is the way in which the departments are reporting on the basis of those guidelines that is problematic.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Mr. Desrochers.

    Mr. Tonks is next for eight minutes, please.

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

    Thank you for your presentations.

    I would like to understand better the role of the Privy Council Office in terms of the process of developing indicators and policy development, in coordination.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I am not the person who is best positioned to answer that question. Essentially, we have in our report--which the PCO would agree with--that they have to remind the department that this is a government priority and this is important.

    It's too bad the PCO cannot be here to answer that question.

    The Chair: Ms. Santi, do you have something to say on this question?

    Ms. Roberta Santi: Yes. I think the Privy Council Office sees itself playing a leadership role in reinforcing the importance of sustainable development with respect to all departments across the public service. In terms of the issues that go before cabinet and go to cabinet committees, they also play a role in ensuring that the different lenses are brought to bear upon issues, in terms of the social, economic, and environmental perspectives.

    They are also taking a role in an interesting policy research initiative. They've brought together senior people from key sustainable development departments to look at best practices and international examples of best practices, so we can learn from them and build them into our approaches.

    The Chair: I think Madame Gélinas has something else to add.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I would just like to add to that by quoting from a letter I received from the Privy Council, dated May 30, 2001, and signed by the clerk:

The Privy Council Office's role is to ensure that departments are aware of the priority the government has placed on sustainable development and that they understand the role they are expected to play.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: It's probably much more complex than this, but if we understand sustainable development to be using best practices and establishing benchmarks to do better for future generations, in the full spectrum of environmental, social, and economic areas, it seems to me there are two fundamental ways to evaluate whether we're doing that.

    The first is in an accounting fashion. Is there a possibility of developing indices that measure what we are doing today against what we were doing? For example, the CO₂ reduction and that kind of thing is a qualitative indicator that could be developed.

    On the other hand, there are also policy parameters that are more behavioural, and change the culture of an organization. An example is a policy change with respect to the dependence on traditional fossil-based fuels as opposed to developing other alternatives.

    Do you break your report down into those two fundamental different areas? Do we have a report that evaluates those two issues in terms of the development of indicators of actual quantifiable and qualifiable aspects of sustainable development, and policy issues?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: With respect to indicators, I will give you the first answer, and maybe my colleague will want to add to that.

    Indicators is something the department, with other organizations such as the national round table, is working on at the moment, so it would be premature for us to audit against results, making sure the indicators are translated in the program policy and what the departments are doing. That's one thing.

    Over the last four years.... My predecessor and I, for the last year, have placed more focus on the processes that the department has put in place to manage well for sustainable development. Now we are in the process of auditing for results. I will be able to tell you a couple of months from now, when I will be tabling my next report, if the concept of SD and the strategy, which is really an action plan, will really translate into results. We will be picking some departments to illustrate that.

    Would you like to add something on it?

    Mr. John Reed (Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development): No, I think you've hit the nail on the head. We don't have good indicators; that's the bottom line in this country right now. We have a lot of experimentation and good work going on in different places, but we don't really have those indicators yet. As the commissioner said, the national round table is developing that.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: What I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is bridge an analysis with respect to the qualitative and quantitative improvement within sustainable development and the behavioural change to effect it, and then evaluating how fast we are reacting. I'm not getting a feel for this right now.

    My final question is, what role, then, as you develop better indicators and you develop this report...? My question with respect to the role of the Privy Council was aimed at trying to extract with greater clarity the role of the committee system and the decision-making and policy-setting system that members of Parliament are engaged in. So my final question is, how do you see this effecting change in policy and responsiveness through the structures of Parliament, making them more effective in achieving sustainable development as you report on it?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I'm not sure if I'll be able to answer that question properly, but what I think is key, when we're talking about moving this country on a sustainable path, is the tool the government has put in place--the sustainable development strategy. Essentially, we have in this the measures and actions that will certainly be able to change government behaviour but also Canadian behaviour so that we can all move on a sustainable path.

    The value and the importance of reporting on sustainable development is to make sure the action plan is working well and we see things changing over time. We're not able to give you this answer at this moment, because we're not there yet, on our side. We have to do deeper work to figure out if this really has been translated into the business plans and there's something going on or not.

    I would be more than pleased, Mr. Chair, to come back next year and tell you if the system is working. I asked the question this year, but I should have some answers next year.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: We look forward to that answer, Madame Gélinas.

    Mr. Findlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I've read a lot of what you've said. I'm sorry I was tardy and didn't hear your presentation, but I have read it before.

    I have two questions. First, I'd like someone to pick a sustainable development objective or strategy or whatever, tell me what it is, what it's supposed to do, and how I would know the things that should happen.

    The other thing that bothers me when I look over the scoresheet, so to speak, in your chapter is that one would expect the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to have a sustainable development program in hand. That's what it's all about, isn't it? And I notice Environment Canada in level three, Parks Canada in level three, the International Development Agency in level three--who surely are involved with all kinds of sustainability questions, granting money to other countries and so on. Then of course, I have to say somewhat sheepishly, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the one that I am somewhat concerned with, is in level four.

    Is this just happenstance? Can you account for this sort of outcome?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I will look to my colleague, Mr. Chair, if I may.

    The Chair: Mr. Reed.

    Mr. John Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    There are two question in there. First of all, what are the strategies supposed to be? Basically, they are supposed to be a unique blueprint for each department on how it's going to change its policies, its programs, its operations to make what it does more sustainable. There's supposed to be a uniqueness to each department's program.

    What we've seen, though, in the case of some of the departments you've mentioned, is that what they're putting in their strategies is pretty much business as usual; the things they were doing years before are the things they're now labelling as sustainable development. The commissioner herself is concerned about whether we're really seeing statements and commitments in these strategies that are going to lead the change. To a great extent we're not seeing this.

    Mr. John Finlay: Can you give me an example of one of those?

    Mr. John Reed: I could read.... Sure.

    Mr. John Finlay: We changed the green Hill buses over to propane-powered buses or something. That was done to make it more green, am I right?

    Mr. John Reed: Yes, that was one. Let me read to you from the Department of Finance's sustainable development strategy. It's obviously a key department here, but I'm just picking the very first one to let you see what it says here.

    Their stated objective is to “maintain a healthy fiscal climate”, and the action they propose to take is to “continue the government's commitment to balanced budgets or better in 2001-02”. That is a statement from the Department of Finance. Just to arbitrarily pick another one, their objective here is to develop “practical uses of economic instruments”, and one of their actions is to “participate in an initiative led by the National Round Table on ecological fiscal reform over 2000-2002”.

    We're not picking on the Department of Finance here, but these are examples of statements that really are restatements of work that was already under way and planned.

    I would say as well that there are lots of departments that are trying to make genuine statements of change; I just happen to have this one here. I don't want to paint all departments with the same brush, but we are seeing an awful lot of this kind of restatement of business.

    You also asked a question about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. They don't have a role in this field with respect to sustainable development strategies. They do have a role with respect to what are known as strategic environmental assessments. Departments, when they create new policies and programs, are supposed to analyse the environmental impacts from those policies. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has a role in shepherding and stewarding that process, but they don't have a role in the sustainable development strategies.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. John Finlay: But you're throwing them in with the other departments here, and you're giving them a rating.

    Mr. John Reed: As a department, they're supposed to have a sustainable development strategy themselves. Maybe I misunderstood your question. They don't have a role with respect to other departments' strategies, but they do have a strategy for themselves.

    Mr. John Finlay: But it's not very good.

    Mr. John Reed: Their management system is not very good, no. In fact, as we say in our report, the departments have been at this for almost five years now, and only four of the departments out of the sixteen we looked at this year have good systems in place that are going to deliver on their own objectives and commitments.

    Mr. John Finlay: Would you care to give me a comment on that commitment you read with respect to the Department of Finance? I mean, we've had five years of balanced budgets or surplus budgets in a row. Sure we'd like that, but it has very little, as far as I can see, to do with sustainable development or the environment. What does it have to do with sustainable development? We raise the taxes, and if we don't spend as much money as we take in, we'll have a balanced budget.

    If we used more renewable energy sources in what we do, in the long term I think that would be a sustainable thing to do. But I read a lot of words all through this, words, words, words--“management”, “systems”, “strategies”, “commitments”, “functioning management” and so on. What kinds of guidelines does anybody give these departments--for example, here are the kinds of things you might do, if you think outside the box, that would be sustainable, that would be what we're talking about?

    I went all through sustainable development in the environment committee for three years, so I think I have some understanding of what it means, but I don't see how it applies to all our departments, except maybe in how much paper they use or waste, how much gasoline they buy, the kinds of vehicles they buy, or how they heat the buildings. But then all those things are covered by Public Works and Government Services, surely. I don't suppose the finance department gets to say “We don't want Crown Vics, we want Shadows or something else”.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chair, we do not decide which commitments are good or bad. This is a policy issue, and the department decides what the commitments are with respect to SD and how they're going to achieve their commitments. So we are out of that thinking in some ways.

    We have to make sure that these commitments are meaningful in terms of moving forward to a healthy country, and also that they are implemented. That's what I'm reporting on.

    Now, I raised the point that what you find in the strategies and the reporting is much more activities than results. This has to change in the future, otherwise we will never get to results.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Mr. Desrochers, four minutes, please.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Gélinas, you may have reviewed the work of people who hold a position similar to yours in other provinces or other countries. Are they achieving greater success in their work? Are there other countries or provinces who are taking the issue of sustainable development and the environment more seriously?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I must say, firstly, that the position I occupy, with all of the leeway I have been given, is one which is just about unique in the world. There is a similar structure in New Zealand but it is in a context I would describe as provincial, rather, and there is also one in Australia, but aside from that we are the only country to have set up such a well- defined structure, with a legislative mandate and all of that.

    Consequently, it is very important that progress be made. Otherwise, questions can always be raised about the relevancy of the position. That is one of the things I must defend. I must ensure that Parliament's decision to create this position was a good one and that it will provide results. I must make it my business to change things. . That is precisely my mandate. How do I execute it? I do so using the tools the government has put in place, i.e. sustainable development strategies as well as audits such as those carried out by the Auditor General in various areas related to the environment and sustainable development.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: So this is a unique model, but one which has stalled.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Let's say it is progressing very slowly. The function is new. We are all learning but at a given point we all have to be able to take an exam and get good results. Learning is one thing. Demonstrating that you have understood and that you are progressing is another.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Gélinas, have you felt that the Department of the Environment has the firm will to support you and your demands?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I don't believe the role of the Department of the Environment is really to support the Commissioner of the Environment. Personally, I audit the Department of the Environment in the same way as I do the others. The management structure the government has set up has a clearly defined role involving the sustainable development strategies for Environment Canada. Environment Canada must play a leadership and coordination role. You would have to ask representatives of the department whether they consider that they are fully executing the role that has been entrusted to them.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is the Department of the Environment one of the departments that responded to your questionnaire?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: As far as we are concerned, Environment Canada is a department just like all the others, and it must produce a sustainable development strategy like the others. Your colleague was saying earlier that among those who set up good management systems, Environment Canada falls into the third category.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Has Environment Canada responded well to the questionnaire? Is the department submitting its report?

[English]

    Mr. Tedd Wood: In terms of reporting against Treasury Board guidelines, they met approximately two-thirds of those guidelines.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much. I am almost through with my comments. Ms. Gélinas, I hope that you will feel that the environment and sustainable development are important for Treasury Board and the departments. This is a debate that is going to become increasingly important and weighty in the social stakes and objectives of the year 2000.

    So, I wish you all the best, I hope you are successful and I hope that the central government listens and responds to you more closely.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Desrochers.

    Ms. Phinney, please. You have four minutes.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    I'm in a quandary. I don't understand what your job is from the point of view of the committee who decided that this department, or whatever you're called, be set up. I think they thought they were voting on someone, or a group of people, who would come in and suggest to the departments how they could be sustainably.... What's the next word; sustainably “logical” or something?

    So if you don't do that, then who is it that's going into EI and saying, “Okay, you're deciding how many hours of pay they should get when they're not working, so now let's make this how many hours you're getting when you're not working sustainably accountable”?

    Again, I still don't understand. Are you talking about the paper in the office or are you talking about the policy decisions of the department? How would EI become more sustainably efficient? I don't understand.

    And who is it, if it's not you, that's telling each department, and each part of each department, that this is what they could do to make it better?

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: It's not really for me to answer your question, Ms. Phinney, but I think the environment commissioner is part of the Office of the Auditor General. It's part of an audit function. Perhaps they could take it from there.

    Ms. Gélinas or Ms. Santi; who wants to answer the question?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Perhaps I would start, Mr. Chair, by telling you exactly what I'm doing. I'm not that much different from the Auditor General. I'm doing the same kind of job but in an area that is narrower. I'm looking after good environmental management and the movement toward sustainable development.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Can I stop you there?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Yes.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: What do you mean by you're “looking after” it? Are you coming up with the ideas or are you judging something that doesn't exist yet, sitting there criticizing something that doesn't even exist? Who is making it exist? That is what I want to know.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The quick answer is, so far, no one.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I don't know how many of you are in that section, but why would we be paying you to judge something we don't even have in effect yet?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Because I'm also looking after the environment, how government policy is implemented. We have done a whole chapter on federal management for sustainable development in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence basin that was not specifically related to the sustainable development strategies departments have tabled. It was more related to environmental issues--how the federal government manages the environment.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: But you accepted a job to judge what was going on in all the government and all the different departments knowing that there's nothing going on in most of them.

    Did you have any idea in your mind of who in the departments would do this, of who would come up with the ideas of how immigration or employment equity or whatever it is can be environmentally sustainable? Who in the departments do you expect to do this? You're checking them, but what are you checking? Who are you checking? Nobody is coming up with the ideas.

    Mr. John Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    When the position of commissioner was created, the act also created a legislative requirement that each department prepare its own strategy to do exactly what you're suggesting. Each department has to look at its own policies and programs and come up with a plan on how it's going to make itself more sustainable.

    The commissioner's role, like the Auditor General's, is to inform Parliament whether departments are doing what they said they would do. This is the nub of the role.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: For three years he was on the committee that made the decision, so maybe we should go back to Mr. Finlay. Are we wasting our money?

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Ms. Phinney has said. We deliberated long and hard over this matter of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think most of the members of the committee didn't want that office in the Auditor General's office, they wanted it separate, like the Commissioner of Official Languages or of Ethics or whatever. We didn't want it in the department. We were outvoted, or anyway, when the legislation came down, that was something we had to give up on. And, yes, all right, we were worried about exactly what we're worried about and what we're seeing here now. That's what we were worried about, that the environment commissioner should be forwarding the...well, the point of view of the environment is sustainable environment; sustainable development was key.

    So I guess we deserve it, and I'm going to take some of the responsibility. Although we didn't want it that way, that's the way it came out, and that's what we seem to have. At that time we had an office of Greening the Hill within the Hill here, and they came up with all kinds of suggestions about what to do for sustainable development. They were committed to that. It wasn't a game of check off the boxes, or how neat a report you can write. It was action, it was people doing something.

    I got rid of the pencils because the pencils never got any shorter; nobody ever used them. They used to set one at every place for every committee meeting. You know that, John; the little man came around with his sharpener, he sharpened them in between, and he put a new pad there. And I said, why don't the pencils get any shorter? Nobody knew the answer. Finally, I tracked it down. At the point they got about this long, they were discarded. I said, well, let's package them up and sell them to the local golf course for score cards, that would be a sustainable thing to do. The pencils sort of disappeared. I guess they decided that we didn't need pencils. We all had pens, we all carried them, and we didn't use the pencils most of the time. John does, that's fine. I haven't used one in seven years.

    We put propane in the green buses, we put storm windows on the windows, and so on.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: What are you getting at?

    The Chair: We're not into a debate across the floor here.

    Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay: I must say, it's fascinating, but it's likewise disappointing. I thought, with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, that was what we should be doing. We were afraid that it would tip over into the Auditor General's camp, the camp of those who count the beans and make sure that we've got the right number or that they're in the right box. What we wanted was action on the environment, which is what I hear everybody asking for as well.

    But you have to do your job, Madam, you're quite right.

    The Chair: Madame Gélinas.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I guess what your colleague was mainly raising is one of the same questions I am asking this committee to help me sort out, and that is, if things are not moving as fast as Parliament would like them to, what is the role of PCO and Treasury Board to make things move faster?

    The Chair: Okay. I'm going to ask a few questions now.

    First let me say that I think the role of environment commissioner is an important one, and that this day, when we all recognize that the environment has to be sustainable, we have inherited a not bad environment from all the hundreds of generations who have gone before us. As for this particular generation, I think we've done a pretty poor job of ensuring that we're passing on to the next one what we inherited from the last one.

    Hence, we have an auditor of the environment whose job it is to audit the legislation that we as parliamentarians put in place to cause each department to be environmentally aware and to cause each department to assess their policies and practices to ensure that they are respecting and promoting the environment. We have the office of the commissioner here whose job, like the Auditor General's on the numbers side, is to see that these reports and that these policies and practices are being addressed. And if I read her report correctly, she is extremely dismayed about the lack of progress and the failure to respect the legislation.

    I would turn to paragraph 2.54 of chapter 2, and quote:

the sustainable development strategies and related management systems are at risk of becoming a paper exercise

    --and I think that's what you were referring to, Mr. Findlay--

with the primary goal of compliance with the Auditor General Act and meeting the requirements of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Exacerbating the situation is a lack of managerial guidance from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

    So, Ms. Santi, perhaps you can tell us why there is a lack of managerial guidance from the secretary to the Treasury Board, because in many other areas I've been extremely critical of the Treasury Board issuing rules upon rules upon rules, yet they never police them. Here comes another situation, so what do you have to say?

    Ms. Roberta Santi: I'd just like to put the initiative of sustainable development in some context. First of all, there is a legislative requirement for 25 departments to table reports in Parliament every three years. They were first tabled in 1997, and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development did audit these first strategies. The strategies that were tabled in 2000 have not yet been fully reviewed.

    I think as you go through the various chapters, it is clear that there has been some progress and some learning across departments about how individual departments take the concept of sustainable development and make it real.

    The Chair: But how are you ensuring that you enforce the rules you write? Are you enforcing the rules you write?

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Roberta Santi: What is linked to that, where the Treasury Board plays a role, is that the Treasury Board provides guidelines for annual reporting to Parliament on two fronts: reports on plans and priorities that look ahead three years down the road and indicate what a department is really planning on doing; and the annual report on what is actually achieved against those plans. Those are departmental performance reports. We provide guidelines to departments on the quality of those performance reports.

    The Chair: What's the point of providing guidelines if they don't follow them?

    Ms. Roberta Santi: We provide guidelines because we think it's very important to strengthen the quality of reporting to Parliament and improve the quality of the work that parliamentarians can review.

    The Chair: But if you don't follow up on your guidelines and say, “You are not following our guidelines, and perhaps you should follow our guidelines”, then you're just wasting more paper, because nobody is reading and following them.

    Ms. Roberta Santi: Basically what we do on this is provide a role of facilitation and leadership. We don't require compliance, but we're working with departments each year to improve and strengthen those DPRs. We're currently, for example, reviewing all 82 performance reports that were tabled in November. We have not completed that review yet, but what we have noticed is that departments are making some progress. It's not perfection, but I think there is progress being made.

    The Chair: I'll quote the commissioner from chapter 3, paragraph 3.22:

However, we are concerned about the adequacy of the performanceinformation provided to Parliament because we found that few departmentsare following the Treasury Board Secretariat's guidelines.

    Now I come back to the point that you issue guidelines upon guidelines on every subject under the sun, including the environment, but nobody's reading them. What leadership are you providing if they're not following them?

    Ms. Roberta Santi: I think departments are following them. The departmental performance reports, in terms of how we structured them and how the guidelines are developed, are actually quite new. We tabled new guidelines last year. What we're trying to do--and this relates to the earlier question on performance indicators--is to get performance reports to focus more on outcomes and to provide information to parliamentarians that can help them understand what departments are doing in terms of the resources they're provided with.

    The Chair: Do you have something to say on that, Ms. Gélinas?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I just want to come back to the report. On the question you were asking, we have a figure there, exhibit 3.3, that shows that there are six elements in the guidelines. As you see, only seven have respected the six elements, and you go down, down, down. Still only 25% are following the guidelines.

    The Chair: So not a lot of leadership.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm not sure who's made this error, but we have an extension of the Auditor General's office who's checking to make sure that somebody has done something. The Treasury Board is giving guidelines for reporting, not guidelines with ideas of what to do. So there's nobody. We have people from what could have just been a branch of the Auditor General's office.

    I would have liked to see the environment commissioner be the one who comes up with the ideas and says, “This is what you people should be doing”. So we have somebody auditing something--there are no ideas yet, but they're going to audit it--and the Treasury Board has guidelines for the reporting. Well, how can you report on something that doesn't even exist?

    We have two groups of people working on something that doesn't exist. We need to pick another environment commissioner who will be action-oriented, not audit-oriented, to come up with the ideas. Neither one of these people is coming up with ideas, and probably they shouldn't; that's not their mandate.

    The Chair: So whose responsibility is it to come up with ideas?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Well, neither one of them, according to this.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If you don't mind, I will answer this one in French to make sure I make myself understood.

    The Chair: Please go ahead.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There is a legal mandate to report to Parliament on the progress of the departments. It is not my initiative to report to Parliament. I do so because of the legal obligation I am under.

[English]

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We already know that. You said that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: What I'm saying is that progress is slow. It is not up to me to find ideas. The departments get together and discuss various approaches and determine the priorities.

    There are 28 departments, each working on their own on sustainable development strategies. There is no general orientation: there are 28 entities and departments, each charting its own course, and we don't know where all of this is going to lead us. This is not the first year we have mentioned it. The best we can do for you is to give you an accurate picture of the situation.

º  (1655)  

[English]

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm not criticizing you, your job, or what you are doing. But apparently, somehow or other, you were given a mandate to audit something that doesn't exist, with nobody picked to make it exist in the departments. It should have been included in the law, I would think, that, as well as having a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who only audits—so this should say “audit” beside it—they should have put somebody in charge of this in every department in the federal government, and in charge of coming up with new ideas. The Treasury Board, which is giving guidelines for reporting, would then have somebody to give it to, and there would be something to report.

    If you don't have a body, a group of people in every single department, whose paid job it is to do this, and if it's not in the mandate, this whole thing is a farce. You people can't do your jobs if you don't have anybody doing that. You can't audit something that doesn't exist. We've missed the boat in only picking auditors and not picking somebody with the ideas.

    The Chair: I mentioned to you that the Privy Council Office should have been here today, and intended to be here today. But because of an important issue that developed either late yesterday or early today, they were unable to be here. They were to speak on behalf of all the government. As I say, though, they're not here today, and they have sent their apologies to me that they could not be here.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: So in the normal government set-up, it would have been their job to pick somebody in each department to come up with the ideas?

    The Chair: That's right. The Privy Council Office, as you are fully aware, has pan-government responsibilities and manages policy and administration right across all of government. The point is that legislation exists so that every department is required to do this, the same as every department required to keep track of its money, including the CCRA, which may be a little bit short these days.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: But they also have somebody there to do it.

    The Chair: Yes, they have somebody there to do it. So maybe the question that we have is whether or not each department has the legislative requirement to ensure that it has the skilled people to develop these environmental programs, and the money and the resources. If they have a legislative requirement, are they following that requirement?

    Mr. Reed.

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

    They don't get that specific in the legislation, but to answer the question, it's very clear that the legislation puts the accountability on the minister of each department to come up with the very ideas you're looking for. The legislation is very explicit about the kinds of things they were supposed to deal with in their strategies: protecting the health of Canadians; protecting ecosystems: promoting equity; making integrated planning decisions. The legislation very clearly says each minister shall cause his department to create a strategy and contain all of those ideas and the actions on how it is going to get there.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Have you done that? That's what we're here to discuss. Is there somebody paid and qualified to do that in each department?

    Mr. John Reed: It varies in each department. Most departments have set up a unit—one of either specialists or one within their policy unit—to do exactly that and to create their strategies. The quality of the strategies is one of the issues we've been raising.

    I think the reason we're raising the role of central agencies so prominently at this time is that, although the government opted for a decentralized approach—each ministry to develop its own strategy—more and more, the very guidance the members have been seeking is missing. There is no Government of Canada policy direction that gets to the specific mandates of the departments. The accountability is for the ministers, within their mandates, to make this real.

    The Chair: Are you finished there, Ms. Phinney?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    You drew our attention to item 2.54 in chapter 2, and Mr. Reed has just put his finger on it again:

After three years of auditing the management systems, it is our opinion that a lack of commitment by some departmental officials may mean that the sustainable development strategies and related management systems are at risk of becoming a paper exercise.

    That's exactly what this report would indicate to me is going on. As well, it says “with the primary goal of compliance with the Auditor General Act”. Now, I don't think you're quoting from the Auditor General Act, are you?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. John Reed: Yes.

    Mr. John Finlay: Oh, you are.

    The Chair: The Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is part of the Office of the Auditor General; it's part of her command.

    Mr. John Finlay: Exactly. All right.

    The statement “and meeting the requirements of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development”, as Ms. Phinney said, should say, “the requirements of the auditing commissioner--or something--of the environment and sustainable development”, because the ideas are not coming from there. They're supposed to come, I guess, from the minister, or the...and they're not trained in that. So I think we have a real problem.

    What we need to do is establish a few criteria or benchmarks. How much of the energy next year has to be renewable? How good is the air in the buildings? What's the level of...? Everybody take their flu shots. What's the absentee rate? Why is it higher in this department than that one? How can we look after the water supply and be sure it's all right, or transportation, paper...?

    The Chair: Ms. Gélinas.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I wouldn't like to leave the impression that nothing is done. I'll say two things about that.

    First of all, we have--and we have identified--some champions. So it's clear in our minds that this is feasible. What we are questioning is why we have so few departments leading this exercise. It's feasible.

    And it's not necessarily the Department of the Environment. We said earlier that Industry Canada, which is an economic department, is really giving its best shot to having a good management system and a good reporting system. Does that mean they deliver? I cannot answer that question at the moment.

    On the other hand, when we do some environmental audits, we see clearly that there are a lot of things going on in the departments with respect to environment and SD. What we are saying here, because we're just talking about reporting, is that so far what the departments report is not exactly the kind of result we are looking for. It's mostly oriented to activities, and we're still looking for good reporting on results. So it doesn't mean that nothing is going on in the departments with respect to environment and SD.

    The Chair: Is that better, Mr. Finlay?

    Mr. John Finlay: Well, again, I agree with Madame Gélinas. The industry department people, though, are the ones who deal with energy, in fossil fuels and biodiesel, and the things we have to do in order to stop polluting the atmosphere to the same extent, and enforcing the laws about the smokestacks in Sudbury,The Pas, and so on. We would expect that. That's exactly right. Industry will have ideas like that. It may be easier for them to shine in that what they do, where they advise people, helps in all those things. It's much more difficult for somebody who doesn't deal with things in the natural world. HRD would be a good example; their involvement is in different activities.

    That's what I think Ms. Phinney is getting at and what I'm getting at. If you're told, all right, you must have an annual report on this, and you must establish some benchmarks and targets and have a few meetings, once every month and so on, to see how you're doing.... You're going to get paper reports, which is what you're getting, it looks to me. Well, it isn't as easy in some departments to do this kind of thing, because you're not grappling with something that's sustainable.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

    Are there any comments on that?

    Mr. Comartin, you have four minutes, please.

»  (1705)  

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

    Madam Gélinas, with regard to your eighth point in your written presentation--and I think you were just making an allusion to this--are you mandated to look at the delivery as opposed to just the paperwork?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Absolutely.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you prepared to make any comments about the delivery on the part of any of the departments?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No, because it's the first year we will be looking at results. So this year--and this is the mandate of my colleague, John Reed--he has the mandate to change track with respect to the sustainable development strategies, and instead of looking at process, we will be looking at results.

    Maybe, John, you would like to add a little bit on that.

    Mr. John Reed: Yes, thank you.

    First of all, we've been talking about the part of the mandate of the commissioner that relates to sustainable development strategies, but there's a whole other part of our business that isn't on the table today, and it gets very issue-specific. In fact, I think this committee had a hearing on our work on ozone protection many years ago, and since then we've done work on climate change, on toxic substances, on hazardous waste, and on urban smog, real issues that will inform you how the Government of Canada is dealing with those issues.

    Now on the sustainable development strategies thing, I think the reality is we all recognized in 1995 that this was brand new for the departments too. They didn't know how to write strategies and they weren't sure what they were doing, so I think the first commissioner made a very conscious decision to give them some space to have some experimentation to develop the training and capacity they needed to deliver on their commitments.

    I guess now we've reached the point where we're saying, okay, you've had long enough to develop the capacity and the systems and we're going to start asking the question, what has changed? Have your policies changed? Have the decisions changed? Are you funding things you didn't use to fund? Are you integrating this into your real business, or this is something on the margins of the department? We think we've given them enough time to lay the foundation, and in the future we're going to be going after the very kinds of questions you've been asking. What has changed in the real policy front in the place where action occurs?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: When will we get the first report?

    Mr. John Reed: October 2002--and this isn't just going to be for the next year. This is a change in direction for future years. We're basically going to go department by department and drill very deep in a selected number of departments.

    I should also mention that with respect to reporting, the reporting on departmental reports has been pretty much a case of our taking what they report at face value and summarizing it. We haven't audited whether what they've said is actually occurring or not. In the future we're going to be verifying their statements to make sure that what they're saying is reliable and true.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Madame Gélinas, this may be beyond your mandate, but let me ask it anyway. Are we at a stage where we need either in regulations or in legislation some sanctions to press forward the governance issue to make sure that the administration is in fact in place to carry out the mandate?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: One of the things we're saying here is that we're really looking to the federal level as a champion first. Also, we don't see where the incentive is for some departments to move ahead, nor what the consequences are for those who are not doing anything. This is a point we raise. We cannot answer that question, but this is once again a question we have asked the central agency. Where is the incentive and what are the consequences for those who are not doing anything?

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Normally, when we finished this meeting--this is administrative, Mr. Chairman--we would have a meeting and write our report. I think we'll have to have another meeting with...was it the Privy Council, you said, who wasn't here?

    The Chair: I think there is some substance to your point there, Ms. Phinney, in the fact that, as you know, the Treasury Board is the central guideline writer for government, in addition to being an employer of the civil service that manages the budgets through Parliament and within the government itself. They're primarily administration.

    Madame Gélinas and her office have clearly pointed out that they're auditors of the government's reports and their accomplishments. Mr. Reed pointed out that the act says each minister is responsible. And I think the point is being made that the government as a whole is saying, well, it's not our job either, because the act says it's each minister. The PCO would have been a good witness here today so that we could ask, who speaks for the Government of Canada? As I said, they did send their apologies and I accepted their apologies because of the reason they gave for being unable to be here today.

    The steering committee will deal with the issue of whether we want to bring them back again.

    Are there any other questions?

    Madame Gélinas.

»  (1710)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Just to answer Mr. Comartin's question, I think my office is at the point at which we believe that, really, without enforcement nothing will change. And this is one of the key messages I would like to leave with you.

    The Chair: I think that's an excellent message, because unless there is accountability.... Accountability can express itself in many different ways. Having to answer publicly to a committee of Parliament is one method of accountability. It's not pleasant for senior civil servants to come here and answer criticisms by the Auditor General of Canada or the Commissioner of Sustainable Development or anybody else who is pointing the finger. That is part of the accountability process, the whole institution of Parliament asking the government to report. We had the Minister of National Defence explaining his situation to Parliament today. It's accountability. And you're absolutely right; unless there is some accountability, what is the motivation for moving the issue forward?

    You also pointed out, of course, that your whole office is new. Mr. Reed pointed out the fact that as you moved forward you gave departments some leeway. Even though they had specific legislative requirements to achieve certain objectives, you were prepared to stand back and give them time to develop them, because we've counted dollars and cents for hundreds of years but we've never really counted the damage that we're doing to the environment.

    So it's a whole new mindset, and I think you're right to do that. But then also, at the same time, you're saying, “Now you've had the time, let's move forward and bring in some accountability”. You have to be commended for that and for bringing it to Parliament's attention.

    The government wrote the legislation. We passed it. We said “This is good”, and we gave you a mandate to go out there and act as that auditor. You're reporting back and you're saying that you're frustrated. That's fine. It's good that you're telling us that you're frustrated. We as parliamentarians have to listen to what you're saying, listen to what the Treasury Board is saying, “Well, the guidelines are just the guidelines.” Unfortunately, the PCO are not here to speak on behalf of the government as far as the policy of “We want this implemented, we want money allocated to ensure that gets done.” Unfortunately, they can't be here today.

    I'm sure you're feeling a little frustrated, this being the first time in front of the public accounts committee, but I want you to go away knowing that you have made an impression upon this committee. We appreciate that very much.

»  (1715)  

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I have to say that I'm not frustrated at all--just to avoid any confusion about what I'm thinking.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Comartin has something to say.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It's a point rather than a question, or maybe a point and a question. I just recently was with the environment committee in Washington. We were at a tripartite meeting, and there were members from the British parliament. Interestingly, a number of the people who were there sit on an environment audit committee in that legislature. They reported--this was quick, and it wasn't part of the rest of what we were doing--that they've had a similar experience. My guess is, if they read your report they would identify with it very closely.

    Unfortunately we didn't go on from there, but I had the sense that over the last two years they have in fact been able to deal with it. So I pass it on to you as information. It may be worthwhile making a contact with them to see what they've done to begin to resolve this. They've had exactly the same problem historically.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chair, you know that the Commissioner of the Environment is often criticizing the government; on the other hand, we are working very hard to find solutions. In this specific case of reporting, we have worked on a proposal we believe will improve reporting. If I may just take two minutes to tell you what this is all about, maybe you will be interested to get Treasury Board's views, because we have shared this with Treasury Board too.

    The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

    Mr. John Reed: Thank you. What we've done in the last year is this. These strategies look different; they all use different language and different terms. So we invested a lot of time trying to normalize all those commitments in the form of what we're calling inventories. We've taken all 28 strategies and have created language that says “Here are your goals, your actions, your targets, and your objectives.” Basically, this is a complete assessment of all the strategies. We think it could be a good reporting tool.

    Essentially it lays out all of the commitments, and we think that if we get departments to fill in the column that says, “What action have you taken against each of these commitments?” and put that on our website so that Canadians and parliamentarians can see it, it will be a very simple tool to improve reporting.

    To prepare the summary-level information that goes into the DPRs--the departmental performance reports--departments need to know what they've done against each of their actions in any event. Having this inventory used and adopted by the departments we think would be a pretty simple and effective way to improve reporting and help them. It gives them a way just to keep track of what they're doing.

    We've been having discussions with the Treasury Board as to whether they would support it, whether they would include it either in their guidance to departments or, even more forcefully, by making it a requirement.

    So that's the idea we've been working on. We really think it's got a lot of win-win to meet both your needs and departmental needs.

    The Chair: I think that's excellent, Mr. Reed, because as I mentioned, this whole environmental assessment and management is new. I also referred to the fact that for hundreds of years we have been counting dollars and cents, or whatever the currency might happen to be.

    Just recently, of course, a large auditor in the United States couldn't even follow these simple rules. If you set out some simple ways to understand the environment in a financial sense--its assets and liabilities and revenue and expenses--we thought these were fairly simple things that auditors in large companies could follow, and we were wrong. Here in this new science or new methodology you are developing, I think, if we want to try to get societies to grasp these targets and assessments and objectives you were laying out--these four criteria you had--is a methodology for understanding how we maintain and preserve and promote and protect our environment.

    I think you're making a significant contribution to the way not just Canadians but everybody should look at the environment.

    So let's have a word from the Treasury Board on how they view this project that has been quickly explained by the environment commissioner.

    Ms. Roberta Santi: We've certainly improved our measures to improve reporting on sustainable development, especially measures that can improve reporting to Parliament.

    I haven't had an opportunity to discuss this with the commissioner, but one of the factors we would want to consider in providing information to parliamentarians and to Canadians is that, in my understanding right now, there are over 2,000 activities across the public service that are focused on sustainable development. I would think our challenge is to move away from the activities and try to report on progress on broad societal outcomes so that we can better trace what kind of difference we're making in the lives of Canadians. I think we need to think about methodologies that will create the right behaviors in departments in terms of where they want to put their focus.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Yes, but Mr. Reed was saying he's trying to develop a framework that every environmental initiative can fall within--assets, liabilities, revenue, expense and profitability--as I used for the private sector. When you count dollars and cents, everybody understands that. It's a standard methodology we use, so we can understand what is going on in the financial matters of a company, a government, or whatever.

    I think you were saying, Mr. Reed, you're trying to work to these broad statements, so as we become more and more environmentally conscious, we use the same language. It doesn't matter if we're in government, in the private sector, individuals, or whatever. Therefore, the same way we use assets, liabilities, revenue, expenses and profitability, we can understand the finances of any organization, provided it's properly reported, of course.

    But I think that's the direction you're trying to move in. Am I correct in saying that?

    Mr. John Reed: Yes, you are.

    The Chair: So what do you think, Ms. Santi?

    Ms. Roberta Santi: I would need to know more about the methodology, but I would certainly like to have more discussions with the commissioner on this. I think it's a very important matter because it could be a useful tool. Again, it's important how the tool is used in delivering clear information on real outcomes and real results.

    Mr. Lee McCormack (Executive Director, Results Management and Reporting, Treasury Board Secretariat): If I may comment as well, Mr. Chairman, I haven't had discussions with the sustainable development commissioner on this either. But as I understand the proposal, there would be an inventory of some 2,600 initiatives across government, and the commissioner would have the ability to seek from departments that information, and create an inventory. I think we would want to apply our judgment on whether reporting on some 2,600 initiatives is good public performance reporting.

    The Chair: I think they're trying to categorize it, so they don't have 2,600 different initiatives reported in 2,600 different ways. As I used the analogy of financial statements, it doesn't matter if it's an energy company, a local grocery store, or whatever, there's a standard format, so anybody can understand it. I think that's the direction they're trying to move in, so departments will have to conform to some standardized reporting on the environment, as they conform to standardized reporting on financial results.

    It doesn't seem to be rocket science to me. It seems to be a good idea to develop, don't you think?

    Mr. Lee McCormack: As I understand it, the commissioner would have the authority to create that inventory. Am I correct?

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The inventory already exists, Mr. Chairman. It was created first and foremost for our internal needs, because we had too many documents and too many strategies and because we were unable to paint an overall picture of the situation. So we created it to meet our own needs. In light of the quality of the computer document we produced, and knowing that we had to report on a permanent basis, we felt that this was the best tool we could devise in order to be able to follow progress ourselves. Afterwards we felt that if it was good for us, it would surely be good for the departments and also for all Canadians who will be able to have access to information thanks to this simple approach, do cross-checks and become aware of the exact nature of the situation.

    With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one thing. Ms. Santi mentioned the number of commitments departments have made. She referred to close to 3,000 commitments. I'm pointing this out to allow you to appreciate the scope of the task we have, which is to follow up on more than 2,000 commitments.

    Ms. Santi's proposal to reduce the number of commitments but to make them more meaningful is also one which I support. I'm very anxious to see how Treasury Board may to some extent influence the departments in order to decrease the number of commitments and ensure that they are significant commitments that will be followed up and lead to positive results for all Canadians.

»  (1725)  

[English]

    The Chair: Then perhaps you should be talking to Ms. Santi to have her maybe rewrite these guidelines so that there aren't guidelines for 2,200 different methodologies, and so that we do get this consistency of reporting so we can understand it.

    I have the same problem trying to look at the performance reports on the activities of every department, when they come down in the fall. There is no consistency, and therefore you really can't assess the performance and the accomplishments. They're all different, even though there could be some standardization.

    So I would think, Ms. Gélinas, that you'd talk to Treasury Board, and maybe in your report you'd give some thought to reporting on how amenable the Treasury Board is to moving down the road that you're going, so that we can, as parliamentarians and as ordinary citizens, not just us but all Canadians, quickly grasp what's trying to be said. I can appreciate that the Department of National Defence has a different environmental strategy, because they have bombs going off all over the place and they blow up the ground and they leave stuff lying around, which is entirely different from a largely bureaucratic department that's office-oriented. But there has to be some commonality in the way you express it so that the average person can understand it.

    Mr. John Reed: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to suggest that there is clearly a willingness on the side of the Treasury Board to have further dialogue with us. Given the hour, we could always endeavour to get back to you, and the members through you, on the outcomes of those discussions and let you know what kind of reaction we've received to the proposals.

    The Chair: I was not really cognizant of the time. On one final point, perhaps you can send that inventory of initiatives that you have to the committee, to the clerk.

    Normally we give the Auditor General the last word. Therefore, Ms. Gélinas, we'll go over to you for the last word.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I will be very quick, Mr. Chair.

    This country is on a journey towards sustainable development. I'm one of the passengers, and you're a passenger too. On behalf of the Canadian population, I would like to know where we're going, when we're going to get there, and who is sitting in the driver's seat. For me, good reporting will allow me to report to you where we're going, at what speed we're going, and when we're going to get there.

    Essentially, if I can have your support in the future and maintain your interest on the issue, that will be of great value to me.

    Thank you very much for the invitation.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The meeting will then adjourn until Tuesday, February 5, 2002....

    Oh, Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.): I believe there's just a little bit of other business to discuss. There's a motion put to the floor, which I'd like to speak to.

    The Chair: No, the motion was accepted as a notice of motion because there is no quorum, so we will not be voting on it or discussing it. It will be on the agenda for Tuesday.

    Mr. John Bryden: Okay, that's fine. If I may, then, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put it on the record that I have submitted notice of an amendment to the motion.

    The Chair: Okay. The clerk is going to distribute the motion tomorrow, therefore she will also be submitting, no doubt, his amendment.

    You've given it to the clerk?

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I have given it to the clerk.

    The Chair: I think we can distribute it. It's in both official languages, I presume?

    Mr. John Bryden: No. My amendment will have to be placed in the other official language, but it certainly needs to be distributed.

    The Chair: Then I will ask the clerk just to make sure it's distributed in both official languages tomorrow. That way it will be on the agenda for Tuesday.

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: You're most welcome.

    The meeting stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 3:30 p.m.