[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 5, 1995

.1000

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good morning everyone.

We are starting our examination of Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act. We are honoured to have with us today the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Ms Eva Ligeti. Welcome to our committee. Please introduce your colleague and make your presentation and we will then ask you some questions. Welcome.

[English]

Ms Eva Ligeti (Commissioner of Environmental Rights, Province of Ontario): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My colleague with me is Mr. Peter Lapp. He is my executive assistant in my office.

I'm very pleased to be here today to provide you with my views on Bill C-83 and to share with you some of the insights I have gained through the operation of my office. Since my appointment as environmental commissioner of Ontario in May 1994, I have discovered a number of things. One of them is that this is a role that is both challenging and exciting.

I have monitored the deliberations of your committee on the establishment of the commissioner of environment and sustainable development and your committee's recent review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My staff and I have carefully considered both of these reports. From my review of your report on the commissioner of environment, I know members of your committee already have familiarity with Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights. Some of the task force members who were involved in drafting the Environmental Bill of Rights have already made extensive presentations to you on the positive and negative features of the legislation.

I would start by saying I think Bill C-83 is an excellent step towards encouraging the federal government to provide and promote sustainability of the environment. The future use and value of public participation and government accountability measures available under Bill C-83 have a great potential to effect significant benefit for Canada's and Ontario's environment.

I have reviewed the proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act...and I have to preface my comments by saying I don't feel I'm able to add comments on the work of the federal Auditor General. My comments will be restricted to various issues I can make in the context of my experience as environmental commissioner under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

To begin with, I am happy that when Bill C-83 is finally passed it will result in the creation of another environmental commissioner with a mandate similar to mine. In the past year I have been working to be part of a network of similar officials around the globe. I have begun a dialogue with such officials in New Zealand, Australia's capital territory, the European Commission in Brussels, British Columbia, Germany and the Netherlands.

.1005

In June of this year I met with Dr. Helen Hughes, who I believe this committee has also heard from. She is New Zealand's parliamentary commissioner of the environment, and we enjoyed a very useful exchange of information and views. For your benefit, I have also attached an appendix 1, a list of other environmental commissioners and officials with whom I have communicated.

I believe there is actually a remarkable interest in the establishment of environmental commissioners and that this interest, which is growing, is attributable to a number of factors. One of these factors is that environmental commissioners help avoid costly environmental clean-ups and resource management mistakes.

The purpose of the Environmental Bill of Rights Act is to protect the environment. Among other things, the EBR is designed to encourage pollution prevention and the conservation of natural resources. There are practical means to avoiding financial and social liabilities. For example - and there are many examples - if a law like the EBR had been available twenty years ago, it's possible we would not be doing the kinds of costly clean-ups, to the tune of millions of dollars, that we are doing in many places in Ontario today.

Another reason there's such a great deal of interest in the establishment of environmental commissioners is that the office enhances smart decision-making by government. The establishment of environmental commissioners fosters smart decision-making by governments, industry and other stakeholders.

Smart decision-making requires that we consider the best, most complete information available before taking action. For example, in the case of the Environmental Bill of Rights, when government releases its proposed new policies and legislation for public comment, they are on the environmental registry and government has an opportunity to receive new information from all sectors of Ontario and avoid wasteful mistakes.

Another benefit is that independent reviews support international competitiveness. To be truly competitive globally, jurisdictions must be able to show that they take environmental protection seriously. The new international dynamics mean that weakness on environmental matters can quickly and often unexpectedly result in trade sanctions, negative publicity campaigns or damaging consumer boycotts not only against corporations, but also against provinces or nations.

Jurisdictions must be able to point to fair, transparent regulation and effective enforcement of environmental laws. They must be able to show not only sound environmental policy, but also that the policies are carried out satisfactorily. Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights provides an independent, impartial review of the provincial government's environmental performance, which can help strengthen our international reputation.

Another reason is that this helps identify opportunities for greater efficiency by government. By reviewing the environmentally significant policies and programs of designated Ontario government ministries, I will be able to evaluate which activities deliver environmental protection most effectively. In addition, my annual report will identify areas where sister ministries may be working at cross purposes, where staff resources could be shared between industries, or where a lack of measurable targets is preventing government accountability. I will be able to make specific practical recommendations for improvement.

This kind of activity will also level the playing field for stakeholders. Since the Environmental Bill of Rights ensures that all stakeholders and businesses get equal access to information about the environment, this will help ensure a more consistent application of environmental regulations across Ontario.

.1010

I will also be able to provide an impartial and balanced overview. My annual report will be fair and balanced and I will recognize progress where it is being made. Environmental commissioners will be able to identify and comment favourably on cases where governments have carried out successful environmental initiatives. They will also be able to identify cases where progress has not been made.

I would now like to turn to reviewing Bill C-83 and the recent debates on it in the House. In order to do this effectively, I have focused my comments on comparing those parts of Bill C-83 that are similar to parts of the EBR.

My first comments concern the definition of sustainable development. I note that Bill C-83 essentially adopted the definition of sustainable development proposed by the Brundtland Commission: ``development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs''.

I think the concept of sustainability is essentially a complicated concept, but it does recognize that there are no easy solutions. We have to promote development and we must do so in a way that recognizes there is a need to balance concerns about the social and natural worlds and the problems of wealth creation.

All the major factors - social, environmental, economic and scientific - must be integrated into decision-making that affects the environment. These principles are reflected in Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights and they are set out for you in table 2, in appendix 2 of my paper.

In terms of precise language, I have found the precise language provided to me in the Environmental Bill of Rights has been very helpful in terms of my work with the ministries subject to the EBR in Ontario. I would highly recommend that a great deal of attention be paid to the definitions in terms of providing and expanding as much clarity to the definitions in this new bill as possible.

I will next look at the powers of the federal commissioner of the environment. I have provided table 3 in appendix 2. It makes a comparison of the powers of the environmental commissioner of Ontario and the federal environmental commissioner. I just want to point out a number of areas in which they are different.

One of the differences is the registry function. Because the Ontario law has a requirement that environmental matters be posted on an electronic registry, part of the role of the provincial environmental commissioner is to publicize new policies and environmental activities.

Secondly, the federal environmental commissioner doesn't have the responsibility to assist the ministries and departments in complying with the new requirements. As the environmental commissioner of Ontario, I am required to assist ministries in compliance when asked to do so.

Thirdly, the federal commissioner is not charged with a public education function. One of my key roles as environmental commissioner of Ontario is to provide assistance and advice to the public in using the new law.

Fourthly, the Auditor General decides what is of a significant nature and should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. I understand this role for the federal environmental commissioner will be that of an auditor. I think the role of independent review and promoting sustainability is very important. My role as environmental commissioner of Ontario requires me to critique policies and actions of ministries failing to comply with their statements of environmental values.

Finally, the federal environmental commissioner has no independent powers to examine persons under oath, whereas my role gives me that power. I believe, however, that there is considerable power in the Auditor General to investigate, so that is a different way of dealing with the same thing.

.1015

In terms of the sustainable development strategies, it's very clear that the kind of cross-cutting initiatives that are required in Bill C-83 represent a significant evolution in thinking about environmental issues. If we are to promote sustainability, all parts of government at all levels must coordinate their efforts.

Other jurisdictions have clearly recognized the validity of this approach. In Europe, the environment directorate of the Commission of the European Communities is encouraging countries to integrate environmental considerations into other policies relating to industry, energy, transportation, agriculture and tourism. This kind of process, however, is anticipated to be a gradual process.

I also note that the federal minister has suggested that the environmental strategies required by the departments will be results oriented. I'm very impressed and applaud Ms Copps that the requirement includes objectives and plans of action to obtain these objectives.

The fact that the federal legislation requires departments to set forth objectives and plans of action in their SDSs is laudable. To further strengthen this process, I would very much suggest that the plans of action have time lines and verifiable benchmarks.

I spoke previously about the statements of environmental values. These are the comparable documents in the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, and I can tell you that the process of developing statements of environmental values in the province of Ontario has created some new requirements for many ministries. In particular, those ministries that did not previously have extensive responsibilities with respect to the environment have found the creation of statements of environmental values to be challenging and time consuming.

With respect to the petitions the public will be able to bring, further to Bill C-83, one of the things I would point out is that the definitions of ``resident'' and ``environmental matter'' may make it somewhat difficult for the auditor general/environmental commissioner to determine when such a petition is properly founded. That may cause us some difficulty at the beginning.

With respect to the phase-in period, I know this is one of the issues that has been raised. My understanding is that the federal departments will be subject to a requirement for preparing sustainable development plans and they will have a two-year phase-in period.

My experience with the Environmental Bill of Rights was that the process essentially started on May 15, 1994. It originally had a ninety-day period for public comment and then a subsequent three months was added. This resulted in a very tight time line for public comment and the development of statements of environmental values for many ministries that had not previously had extensive experience with this kind of activity.

After public comment and my office's review of the statements of environmental values, it was decided that the first full year in which these statements of environmental values were being used by the ministries would benefit from a further review and public comment period.

In the end, Ontario will take practically two years to implement the statements of environmental values. Interestingly, this period is very similar to the amount of time Bill C-83 proposes it will take the first sustainable development strategies to be developed by federal ministries.

.1020

Finally, I would like to talk about the role the environmental registry and public participation play in the Environmental Bill of Rights. Particularly, I believe that the environmental registry is encouraging the development of the new information highway and addressing what I call the environmental information deficit many people operate under.

In establishing the environmental registry, which is a computerized bulletin board of information about government proposals for environmentally significant policies, acts and regulations, the EBR goes a long way toward addressing the need the public has for information about environmental decision-making at the provincial level.

In addition, the fact that the Environmental Bill of Rights gives the public a comment period means that the participation is essentially ongoing. New policies and proposals are posted automatically on an environmental registry. The public has access to it at about 330 public libraries, free of charge through the use of a modem from an office or home computer, and also through computer networks such as WEB and Internet. A thirty-day notice period applies to most of these instruments.

This information access provides that all stakeholders, including the public, business and interest groups have advanced notice of the intent of government to make regulations or other laws concerning the environment. It allows the public advanced notice to be able to provide feedback.

This registry provides a new role for government in relation to environmental information. Government no longer just collects information and keeps it. It requires government to adapt to the new information age and it makes government use information technologies in order to find environmental solutions.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I think Bill C-83 is a very important step toward encouraging the federal government to promote sustainability. I certainly congratulate the House of Commons and the committee for the work it has done. I am very pleased to be here to give you my views today. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Ligeti. That is very helpful. We appreciate your comments at the end very much.

We will try today, as we did on Tuesday, to have one or two rounds of one question per member. I have on my list Madam Guay, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Forseth and Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): A point of order Mr. Chairman, related to the questioning.

I have found that procedure somewhat difficult. I agree with the one-question concept, but often a supplemental question related to the first question might be in order, rather than just cutting me off after asking one question.

I know we are not going to the procedure of assigning five or ten minutes per group in going around, but keeping it too strictly to just one question really inhibits our ability to get at where we are going. Perhaps we could ask a question and a supplemental related to that question, to fill out the original question.

The Chairman: Let's give it a try and see how it works. We will then have a question and a short supplementary so everybody has the same chance.

Mr. Forseth: A very short question is needed in the beginning to see which way we are going and then the substantive question has to come later. I will trust the chair to be reasonable.

The Chairman: The chair is always reasonable.

.1025

Mr. Forseth: Yes, indeed.

It's just my general appeal for a little bit of wiggle. That's it.

The Chairman: We will try a question and then a brief supplementary, or a supplementary first and the long question after.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Keep in mind that time is a precious commodity.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay, you have the floor.

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Good morning.

Our party obviously agrees with Bill C-83 since it had been first brought up as a proposal by the Bloc. On the other hand, I am wondering how the Bill could be improved to become really efficient. Since time is precious, I will limit myself to one question but it will have several levels.

I would first like to know how long there has been a commissioner for the environment in Ontario.

You gave us the differences that existed between the office of the federal commissioner and the office of the provincial commissioner. How can we improve the bill in order for it to be efficient at the federal level without overlapping necessarily with the provincial level.

[English]

Ms Ligeti: I started on May 30, 1994.

There are differences. I've been looking at all of the legislation, not just Ontario and federal, but also that of other countries. I gave you a list of some of the other countries I've been looking at.

My discovery is that essentially there are slight differences in every situation, but the intent is always the same. The intent is to have cross-cutting legislation that means environment comes out of the silo of only certain departments having responsibility for environment. I think the main contribution of this type of legislation is the requirement that all departments seriously consider the environmental implications of what it is that they're doing, rather than only certain departments putting the environmental agenda into the forum.

It's being done in different ways in different jurisdictions. The European experience is different. In New Zealand, where they have only federal government and municipal governments, the requirement is different, but the key aspect is the intent of the legislation.

I believe this kind of activity ought to reduce duplication. I certainly have said that part of my role vis-à-vis the different ministries in the provinces is the opportunity to point out that duplication in an impartial way, to the extent that I hear from the public that ministries duplicate efforts and to the extent that my review discovers duplication.

I think it's the impartiality of the review that's important for cutting down duplication, because often duplication is historical. A way of doing things may no longer be effective, but without a review, you don't really know where the duplication is. I think that over time you will find that the environmental commissioner is in a position to point out waste and to suggest where resources could be best spent so that we don't have unnecessary duplication. I suggest that an impartial person with an overview of the activities would mean that we ought to, over time, have less duplication.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Do you believe you have enough power to exert some influence? Does Bill C-83 give the commissioner enough teeth and enough powers for him to be really effective?

[English]

Ms Ligeti: I don't want to sound flippant, but one never has enough power.

.1030

I think that as a necessary first step the creation of the role is absolutely crucial.

Ultimately, I think we have to recognize there's a different kind of power for an appointed official as opposed to an elected official. Certainly, in my role as environmental commissioner, I think we've struck a fairly good balance between the watchdog role of an appointed official and the ability to try to influence in a positive way the decisions coming from government and from the responsible ministers under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

I think Bill C-83 is focused on that same sort of dynamic.

The Chairman: All right.

Madam Guay, Madam Kraft Sloan, s'il vous plaît.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you very much. Your brief and your presentation this morning have been very helpful.

You pointed out two issues some members of this committee had raised on Tuesday regarding the legislation and concerns that we have. The first is the definition of sustainable development, because it means different things to different people. We're going to take a look at what's been outlined in your legislation in that area to help us lay down some principles and ways of working toward sustainability.

The second area concerns helping or guiding departments in the preparation of their sustainable development strategies. Could you share with us your thoughts on how we balance the need to promote sustainability? How do we support the department's work in making the shift towards sustainability while balancing it against the very important role that someone in the Auditor General's office would play around neutrality and lack of bias?

Ms Ligeti: It's probably the most difficult part of my role conceptually because I am assigned the roles of providing information to the public about the Environmental Bill of Rights, of assisting the ministries, and then of reviewing and reporting on what ministries have done. But I do believe that is in the context. If the definitions in the act are done well, the assistance I'm able to give to the ministries is in the context of helping them accommodate those definitions.

As I said in my presentation, the key is that the definitions provide sufficient information to the environmental commissioner. There must be enough of a basis for the commissioner to discuss with the departments how the interpretation of those definitions should go. It certainly helps me when I don't have to get into a role where I deal with every specific in each department.

Certainly, one person or one office - even well staffed and with lots of expertise - can't possibly know the work and the business of the various departments. The useful advice we can provide to the departments is how these definitions and how these goals ought to be accommodated. The specifics have to come from the departments because they're the experts in their work.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Is that it?

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you for being here today.

You have described two visions. One in your operation is somewhat of a watchdog-monitor role versus the other, which is a more involved, assisting, guiding and facilitating role. Look at your mandates versus the mandates proposed in this bill. Could you share your thoughts on how this bill fulfils that? Does it go far enough?

.1035

The bottom line of course is the delivery of intent. You talked about how a variety of jurisdictions all have the same general direction, but it's a matter of the nuances of how we get there. I'm particularly interested in this somewhat monitoring role of the traditional Auditor General that the federal government has had and the kind of thing you're describing, a more facilitative role.

Perhaps you can talk about that and get into the bill here and make some comments about that.

Ms Ligeti: I pointed to three very different roles that I have. One is to provide education to the public; the second is to review and report; and the third is to provide assistance.

To a certain degree, the fact that I have interaction with the public means that I'm able to provide assistance not just from the point of view of me as a person and me in terms of the expertise that I in my office am able to develop through academic or other research, but we're able to provide assistance also from the point of view of what we are able to interact with the public. That interaction with the public is a somewhat unique role for an auditor, and that's why, in effect, I'm not exactly an auditor, I'm a commissioner.

I can say, for example, that last week I spent three days in Thunder Bay, which is a city in the northwest of Ontario. In three days my staff and I met with 23 different community groups and heard from them many of the kinds of issues and concerns that they have around the environments in their locality and their region.

Also, in the sense that my office, like the federal environmental commissioner, takes applications as opposed to petitions - but they serve much the same purpose - from the public.... So my office has a really good sense of what is going on in the community, in the public, what the concerns are and what things are actually happening, not just an understanding of what departments are doing.

So when we're in a position to provide advice to various ministries, we do that from the point of view of both having information from the public and having information from the ministries and reviewing the legislation.

I would hope that when this bill is passed and the federal commissioner starts to do his or her work, the petitions that will be coming through his or her office will provide the commissioner with the same kind of insight into the country and how the public is responding to the activities of the government. I think that will be a valuable insight.

Mr. Forseth: Related to that theme of connectedness and interaction that you talked about, what about the variety of commissioners now across the country and how that's going to interact with the federal commissioner? Where are we going to harmonize all these commissioners who are running around?

Ms Ligeti: I assume that there will be a certain opportunity to communicate. As with other things, that will develop over time.

The Chairman: They are in different jurisdictions.

Ms Ligeti: I do think it would be very worth while to have an opportunity to meet on a regular basis with other commissioners in other provinces and the federal commissioner. I'm sure that would not be very difficult to arrange.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I'm new to this committee, so the question I'm going to ask might reveal the ignorance I have of the subject. I hope not. Perhaps in the preamble I've already given it away.

It seems to me that the report of the standing committee on the commissioner of environmental and sustainable development in fact recommended a commissioner similar to you, and a bill similar to the EBR, but indeed the minister rejected that recommendation in favour of the Bloc Québécois recommendation for a blending in, if you will, of the commissioner with the Auditor General.

.1040

In that connection, I note that your brief says the purpose of the Environmental Bill of Rights is to protect the environment. In your comments today you have said you feel the new commissioner under Bill C-83 would have a similar mandate. I do not see it that way. I wonder if you could tell me what in your view is the purpose of Bill C-83. Is it, overall, to protect the environment, which is your main mandate?

Ms Ligeti: It's interesting the way the EBR involves sustainability. The overall purpose of the Environmental Bill of Rights is to protect, conserve, restore the natural environment. But then it goes on to say the purpose of that is to make sure the environment provides a healthy place for human beings and for ecosystems, and also that we have a sustainable environment. Then it goes further, and if you read further on, it says the purpose of the Environmental Bill of Rights is to make sure environment is integrated specifically with social, economic, and scientific considerations.

To that extent, in today's legal and regulatory environment I think the concept of sustainability has been built into all the issues around protection in the last 25 years. I personally have been involved with environmental law and regulation for about 25 years. I first became involved with it as a student. I've been involved with it as a lawyer, as a law teacher, and now as commissioner.

I think we've seen that the emphasis has moved. We've become much more mature and much more sophisticated in how we deal with environmental matters. Certainly there's a strong role for government to regulate on the environment and for environmental protection, but the emphasis, given our current state of knowledge, is very much on issues of protection and sustainability.

So an emphasis on sustainability, in my review of what that emphasis entails...is that it must entail protection, conservation, and restoration, because without that sustainability really doesn't have meaning. That's why I was able to say protection and sustainability go hand in hand. I don't find that those contradict at all.

Mr. Wappel: A supplementary on the issue of mandate. I think your table 2 is very educational. You quite rightly point out that the proposed commissioner will have no public education mandate, will have no mandate to assist federal departments, will not be charged with commenting on the adequacy of sustainable development strategies, will make an annual report and has no special report powers, and is subject to the decision of the Auditor General as to what is significant - none of which is similar to your mandate. Would you agree with me?

Ms Ligeti: That's right.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I find your document very helpful, and thank you very much for coming.

To follow a little on Mr. Wappel's question, I'm concerned that on page 5 you indicate there is no requirement that the departments publicize environmentally significant proposals. Yet on the next page we talk about the need for sustainable development strategies, which are in the bill, I believe, and you say the minister has said they should be results oriented.

Is it not in Bill C-83 that the commissioner could make these things public? They have to be reported to Parliament. Would the regulations not cover that? And what about reporting? It is necessary that the commissioner report.

Ms Ligeti: I think what I was emphasizing was that an instrument like the environmental registry is perhaps leading-edge. It makes available to the Ontario public proposed acts, regulations, and policies before they become final. I think the difference is that the environmental strategies will probably review existing policies and strategies, and, as Ms Copps has said, will probably have plans and objectives as well.

.1045

So the environmental registry is really instantaneous. However, I think the difference is that the report and the strategies are more periodic.

One of the things I'm proudest of in terms of the Environmental Bill of Rights is the access to information that the public has in terms of the activities of government and the fact that there is access to this information at least thirty days before anything is finalized.

I would think, though, that the annual report I will be presenting to the Ontario legislature will also be part of that information that the public now has available, which was unavailable prior to the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I may want to go down an avenue that's a little different on this issue. You mentioned that you had been in contact with environmental commissioners throughout other parts of the world.

First, I don't know how many provinces have environmental commissioners. I would like to know how many provinces do have similar types of persons in place.

Second, in your venture into these other areas, do you see compliance at the same level and agreements that are generally agreed upon to reach a certain sustainable energy and levels of attainability in the short term? Are their expectations the same as those of Canada? Are we impeding or are we basically enhancing international trade because of these kinds of measures? Are we causing concern to industry? I realize industry is also interested in becoming compliant to the new way of thinking in terms of these issues.

Are we doing this in concert or are we sort of going off on our own? Is Ontario doing it differently from other provinces, so that, even within our own Canadian boundary, we have differences? I think these are concerns that we all want to recognize in our interest of trying to attain an international trade balance so that we have fair and competitive levels on the playing field.

Ms Ligeti: First, I haven't done a really systematic study to find out how many other environmental commissioners there are. I have communicated with the ones who have come to my attention. I must say, though, that because of the Brundtland Commission and a number of other factors, this seems to be a going trend.

The original one was Dr. Helen Hughes in New Zealand. The commissioners in Australia are recent creations of the legislature there. There's a push in Europe on a cross-studying kind of emphasis. Having an environmental commissioner who is not part of any particular jurisdiction is also a new emphasis. So it seems that Ontario and the federal government are part of a trend that is happening all across the world.

I think you're right that there is a difference between the short-term and the long-term feasibility of the work I'm doing. In the short term, the kind of work I'm involved in is trying to get structural and systematic change in how we deal with our environmental regulations. That takes some time. The task force that reported to the Ontario government on the Environmental Bill of Rights predicted that the impact of it would be really felt more in the medium and longer term than in the immediate short term. So I don't expect that the first report of an environmental commissioner is going to change the world or change the way in which the world functions.

However, what will happen over time is that the new information, as these reports start to track patterns and activities, will provide an opportunity for government to improve its activities and to learn more about the environment across a number of portfolios and expertises than ever before. It's the cross-cutting nature of the role of the commissioner that makes it very useful.

.1050

In terms of the concerns of industry, I have to say that the task force in Ontario that recommended unanimously the creation of the Environmental Bill of Rights and the commissioner was equally represented by major industry, as well as environmental groups and government. It had unanimous support. Industry is just as happy as anyone else to have a certain level of predictability toward what is going to happen.

To the extent that governments and environmental commissioners can add to clear goals, objectives and plans, and put those on the table before they happen, and with an opportunity for feedback, I think industry regularly finds that to be a major benefit. I believe also that the push is on to make sure that certainly European competitors, and North American competitors as well, are going to have an understanding of the environmental costs in products. That's not going to stop.

There may be some industries that are less supportive of having environmental costs as part of the cost of a product, but I think the trend is that competitors want to know how much an environmental cost is associated with a particular product. Exporters and importers also want to know that. Products that have a lot of environmental costs, either at the beginning or the end, are under a lot of pressure.

The Chairman: Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I'm very pleased to see you here. I was at Queen's Park in the late 1980s, which were very exciting times - or so we thought - environmentally. As for the Hagersville fire, I was the parliamentary assistant to the environment minister for that. There was the blue box and some of those things.

I'm sorry we didn't introduce the legislation under which you work. I take it that it was a wonderful thing done by the Province of Ontario.

My colleagues have mentioned this a number of times, but would you care to talk again about the business of placing the commissioner within the purview of the Auditor General? Generally speaking, it seems to me that one argument says we should have a special office, it should be completely independent, and so on.

The other argument, apart from cost savings, is that the Office of the Auditor General is a very well-established, independent and powerful institution that already has the public spotlight. So our commissioner will share some of that power and that spotlight from the very beginning.

I sense from your remarks here that you're concerned about the fact that our commissioner will be in the Auditor General's office.

Ms Ligeti: I have to say that when I first started, I can remember my first day at Queen's Park. I was given a two-room office in Whitney Block, with two desks, a television and two chairs. I quickly went around and met with our provincial auditor. I have since met with the Auditor General.

From my point of view, there is certainly a great deal that you can gain by being part of a well-established, large organization that has extensive resources available to it, as well as experience and expertise.

On the other hand, the independence I have means that I'm able to basically start something from the ground up, work on it, tailor it, and accommodate it to the need of the particular legislation to be complied with for which I'm responsible.

I'm really not able to say decisively. I'm quite happy with the way in which the Environmental Bill of Rights provides me with a fairly broad scope to interact both with the public and with the designated ministries. I don't really see that this scope cannot be read into the present legislation.

The legislation you have is much shorter and briefer. It's an amendment to an existing piece of legislation. I can't say that I'm an expert in any way whatsoever on the fuller legislation of the Auditor General Act.

Mr. Adams: Very briefly, if you would, the other one has to do with your remarks about petitions and your application form, or whatever it is. Would you care to talk a little more about that?

.1055

I looked at your form, and if I were a citizen who wasn't aware of the process, the form would be very useful to me. On the other hand, the petition is a broader, very simple thing that I could pick up immediately and fill in, and it just happens to be an environmental petition. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages?

Ms Ligeti: The biggest problem for the public is the public doesn't generally understand the context in which these documents are being reviewed. In other words, these documents, whether it's a petition or an application for review, are being reviewed in the context of a very complicated regulatory legal structure.

The public can be provided with assistance in how to target their comments more precisely. My experience over the last year has been that the more precisely the public is able to state a case and marshal the arguments, the more benefit there is to the point they're trying to make.

Our application form, much of which is prescribed in the legislation, tries to narrow the discussion to some specifics so that when the public brings about an application or requests government to do something, they're able to point to something that government has the jurisdiction to do.

My concern is that the public would feel that general comments are adequate. General comments tend to be not that much use. I have staff whose job it is to advise the public and provide public education on how to make these applications as useful and as precise as possible.

Mr. Adams: Thank you.

The Chairman: I have two brief questions; we're running out of time.

One has to do with table 1. On the side of the Environmental Bill of Rights Act you have five purposes clearly identified. You said earlier that the Environmental Bill of Rights Act involves sustainability, so I'm wondering why you did not include in your purposes the integration of the economy with the environment, it being one of the major sustainability principles.

Ms Ligeti: Basically what we've done here is just copied section 2 of the EBR. Later on in the EBR it says very specifically that the ministries must, in making decisions under the Environmental Bill of Rights Act, integrate environment with social, economic, scientific and other considerations. So it's just another section.

The Chairman: But from table 2, in the last paragraph, how do you propose going about keeping governments accountable for their significant environmental decisions?

Ms Ligeti: Currently we're in the process of looking, ministry by ministry, at the question of which classes of decisions within a ministry have the potential of significant environmental effects. That's the first question, and it involves a review of the work of the ministry.

Once that potential is determined, then the question is to what extent the ministries have used the environmental registry to provide information to the public about the significant decisions they're about to make, and to what extent the public comments have helped the ministries to make better decisions.

So the accountability mechanism under the EBR is very much supported by the registry process and also by the classification of decisions. The ministries really have to review what their business is and understand where there are places in the work they do that will have significant environmental impacts.

The Chairman: Thank you.

.1100

We are running out of time. Let's see if we can conclude with one question for each party, very briefly. Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I notice your background is quite extensive. You've had quite an accomplished career. When we first heard witnesses when we were putting our report together the first time, a lot of people said the success is going to depend on who you choose as the commissioner. I wonder if you could briefly share with us some of the things from your background that you find have been very helpful in this position.

Ms Ligeti: Thank you for the compliment, to start with.

I think having a background in environment and having a background where environment has been something that I've studied, I've been active in.... Also, having a background in community service has been useful.

As you can see, I don't really have a background as a civil servant, although I have worked for a public organization, a community college. In a way, my background means I'm not part of government, although I understand quite well how government works and I particularly understand environmental law and regulation. Those two understandings are probably more important for me.

The role I play in terms of sensitivity to the broad spectrum of the public involved with the environment is also fairly important.

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: To bring closure to the day, I just want to know what your global budget is, how big your staff is. Generally, since you've been in operation, have you really noticed some changes in the departments you're looking at, some measurable environmental pay-off? Is it working?

Ms Ligeti: Again, one of the things I want to emphasize is that it is working, and the reason it is working is that the ministries that are subject to the Environmental Bill of Rights are starting to do precisely what we wanted them to do, which is to say we do have a responsibility for the environment, and that responsibility isn't just across the table with my colleague, that responsibility sits with my activities as well.

You will see that change more over time, though, because these kinds of things don't happen automatically. New policies coming out of the Ontario government will have to reflect the integration of the environment or they will be subject to some discussion in Parliament.

I think there is short-term change as well as long-term change.

Mr. Forseth: Budget and staff?

Ms Ligeti: My staff is fairly small. I have been allocated 18 full-time staff.

Mr. Forseth: And global budget?

Ms Ligeti: My global budget is...I'm waiting for a new meeting with the Board of Internal Economy as soon as they are....

Mr. Forseth: But what are you requesting?

Ms Ligeti: Originally the idea was that it would be under $2 million. I'm under that.

The Chairman: Mrs. Guay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Could you tell us who selected you and when you were appointed environment commissioner? Was it the government or the Auditor General, or did it happen differently? How is the choice made and what process do you suggest for chosing the commissioner?

[English]

Ms Ligeti: The process was very interesting. I like telling this story.

The Chairman: Make it brief.

Ms Ligeti: There was an ad in The Globe and Mail, describing the position. I understand close to 400 people applied. There was a parliamentary committee such as this one, an all-party committee. Human Resources at the legislative assembly vetted the applications. Ultimately the hiring committee was the parliamentary committee, and at the end of the process and a number of interviews, I was selected unanimously by all three parties in the Ontario legislature.

.1105

Mr. Forseth: [Inaudible - Editor]

Ms Ligeti: Several times.

The Chairman: This concludes our session with you, Ms Ligeti and Mr. Lapp. We thank you very much for appearing.

Ms Ligeti: Thank you very much. It's certainly a great honour and a great pleasure for me to be here today.

The Chairman: Your input was very thoughtful and detailed, yet overarching.

We wish you well in your endeavours and we look forward to perhaps seeing you again.

The next witness is Ms Davis. She knows this committee very well. She seems to appear regularly, every six months or every year.

We are very happy to have you again and we look forward to your comments and then to a round of questions.

Ms V. Ann Davis (Senior Vice-President and Director, KPMG Environmental Services Inc.): I don't have anything in writing for you today. It's slightly short notice, so I'll be speaking from some notes I've made and thoughts I've had on this issue for some time.

It seems to me as if the planned objective of the appointment of an environmental commissioner is really to assure Parliament, which has the ultimate responsibility for the functioning of the government, that the government itself is adopting sustainable practices in its own operations and in its policy development. That is my interpretation, if I were in your seat looking to what the commissioner should be doing.

I can see that it's expected that this will be achieved by each department preparing an action plan, a sustainable development plan, with the commissioner ultimately reporting to Parliament on the development and the implementation of those plans.

The question I have in my mind is whether or not the government is ready for that kind of watchdog role.

I was here earlier and I heard Ms Ligeti use the term ``watchdog'' as well. It would be a concern or question that I have in my mind, probably coming from the fact that the commissioner is housed in the Office of the Auditor General and this is traditionally what is thought of as being the Auditor General's role.

In my experience, largely in the private sector but also in some government departments, it takes a considerable amount of time for an organization to develop a thorough environmental management program and to implement it successfully. The starting-point for that development is at the top. It's in the area of leadership and commitment to change and policy.

Organizations typically don't shift from perhaps a compliance orientation to full sustainable development practices in a short period of time, and therefore there is a need for some guidance and resources to be provided to government departments to allow them to make the transition, arguably from a compliance orientation - compliance with laws, dealing with liabilities related to past practices - to more proactive and preventive approaches, and ultimately to sustainability.

There's a role for the commissioner, as a resource to government departments, to help them to set some priorities and objectives and targets that are attainable and are within the context of the overall policy direction of the government. Otherwise the potential, it seems to me, is there for either departments to find themselves at cross-purposes with each other or having difficulty resolving the conflicts that do arise between environmental issues and other policy issues and priorities. A simple one that comes to mind is fiscal responsibilities, where departments have to live within certain budgets and sometimes find themselves in conflict with their environmental goals.

.1110

I believe there is a need for some kind of centralized, senior-level position to act as a champion, coach, resource to government departments in the development of those sustainability plans,as opposed to coming along after the fact and reporting on whether or not they're there and whether or not they're implemented. To me, that is one issue or question that I have around the way I readthis bill.

There is another area in which I think the commissioner can assist. In the private sector it is usually fairly clear as to what motivates the organization to adopt environmentally sound practices. It is often fear of legislation, and then they get a little more sophisticated around recognizing that there are opportunities for cost savings, market opportunities and trade opportunities. In government the prime opportunities or motivators, aside from cost savings, which I think is certainly a motivator for all of us these days, comes from a broader vision of leadership on the part of government to stimulate environmentally responsible practices in other sectors through their own policies.

I think there's an important policy development piece that has to come first to set the stage and the framework for departments to develop their own sustainable plans. I believe there should be a role for a position like the commissioner in that kind of activity, recognizing that there's potentially a conflict between policy development and then an auditing function. Again, it's something that needs to be balanced, given the positioning of this commissioner as to the role of advising on policy development as compared with reporting on its implementation and achievement.

I also think the environmental commissioner should act almost as a proxy for Parliament, if that's possible, because it is ultimately Parliament that is responsible for the achievement of environmental objectives of the department. I think the commissioner could act as a facilitator, as a go-between, between the desires of Parliament and the departments as they develop their plans.

Ms Ligeti, at the last of her comments, also mentioned this next point. That is, the potential for duplication of effort in various departments if everyone is trying to develop their own plan without an overall framework provided from the top. Certain activities that need to be undertaken in the development of management plans include monitoring developments nationally and internationally in the area of standards, in the area of regulatory changes, which is often a daunting task for any one organization to try to monitor and stay on top of these changes. It seems to me you have the potential for every department having to carry out that kind of function. There is an opportunity for a commissioner role or the office of the commissioner to provide some assistance in that area by either actually providing the service or facilitating the sharing of the information between and among departments so we don't get into that kind of duplication.

You've probably heard from others, and I think you may have heard from me on prior occasions, about the number of developments taking place internationally in the area of environmental management standards, particularly the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO. I know there are representatives of the federal government participating in that process, and Canada, through its private and public sector representatives, is providing important input to that development. I'm not sure that is getting shared currently across the government, and I think it is an example where some mechanism is needed to facilitate that kind of sharing of information across the departments.

.1115

When it comes to reporting on the environmental performance of government departments, again I'm quite sure we're lacking the mechanisms to provide that kind of reporting. Environmental performance reporting generally is in its infancy, whether you're looking at private sector or public sector. The existence of recognized performance measures and indicators of performance are not well developed. There's lots of debate on the subject.

Many organizations are working on the development of standards, if you like, or guidelines around performance reporting, and I think there's an opportunity here for the commissioner to have a role in assisting the government broadly in the development of the performance measures and the reporting mechanisms with respect to environmental performance reporting.

It's difficult for me to think about how the commissioner, through the Auditor General, will report on implementation of the sustainability plans of departments if there isn't a reporting mechanism within the department itself to monitor its own progress. That needs to come first, in my mind, before it can be audited and then communicated through to Parliament. It is a large task and is not a simple one.

Organizations that I know of in the private sector have been struggling with environmental performance reporting for four and five years and don't feel they really have it quite right yet, and they often struggled with it for some period of time before they went public with it.

Another underlying concern I have is that if such reports are delivered too prematurely, without the support and resources provided along the lines that I'm describing, Parliament could find itself in the position of having perhaps confusing reports, not knowing what they mean, the worst-case scenario, I suppose, being somewhat embarrassed about the information that comes forward in a public way before departments are quite ready for this. I don't think that serves anyone in any organization. Priorities have to be set and balances have to be struck between what's possible and what's most important to be done and when, and trade-offs have to be made. It would be difficult for an individual department to make those decisions in isolation of some overall direction, something that I think could come from the commissioner.

I mentioned earlier that all of this would seem to potentially create a conflict between the activity of coming along after the fact and auditing the implementation of these plans and reporting through the Auditor General. Walking some fine lines may have to be done here to preserve the independence of the commission. I think that is important. I believe one of the objectives of housing it in the Office of the Auditor General is to preserve the independence of this office and provide what I think is an appropriate reporting line, essentially directly through to Parliament as opposed to through a ministry, with the responsibility for implementation of these plans being firmly in the departments and with the minister, and I think that's quite appropriate.

However, in the interim or in the start-up period, which I think could easily take five years - the federal government is a a very large organization and you can't change direction very, very quickly - there is a quasi-management role to be played by the commissioner that will have to be balanced against the need for independence down the road in reporting directly to Parliament.

.1120

Those are my formal comments. I welcome questions.

The Chairman: There will be lots of questions. Mr. Adams has indicated already that he has some, as have Madame Payne and Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Adams, one question please.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's just a very short question, Ms Davis. I am, by the way, very pleased to see you here again.

The commissioner from Ontario gave us a list of environmental commissioners or similar officials around the world. I see there are four countries on it, plus the European Community, plus British Columbia. I know you have a wide range of experience in other jurisdictions in the private sector, of course, as well as in the public sector, which we're discussing. Just generally speaking, are we ahead of the game or behind the game in introducing legislation of this type at this time?

Ms Davis: My comments would really be based on some anecdotal information, of course. I think you're probably in the game. I don't think you're particularly behind or too far ahead. I think a lot of governments are coming to the realization that there's a need to walk the talk and to affect policy in a way that will stimulate these kinds of activities in the private sector. I think a commissioner of the environment with varying kinds of roles is the way people are going.

Mr. Adams: I'm just surprised this list was so short. Do you know, for example, whether the Director General of the Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection Directorate of the Commission of the European Communities - Do you know if the European countries have given up the commissioner role? I wonder why there aren't more European countries listed here.

Ms Davis: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that, although I think this commissioner is perhaps an integral part of other activities taking place in the European Community, including this voluntary set of standards that you may or may not have heard about called EMAS, the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Under it, and on a voluntary basis, organizations will be required to provide environmental statements and have them verified by independent outsiders in order to operate in certain countries. So there are other policy related activities taking place that enhance the same kinds of activities the government is looking at doing through a commissioner's office.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: You said that the Commissioner of the Environment should have a great deal more power. You also said that you would give him a much more important role than that described in the Bill and that broad responsibilities requiring an equivalent budget and staff in order to fulfill these tasks. From the way that you have described this person, he would almost have to be elected whereas in fact we want someone who is going to remain neutral and be able to make recommendations. You would give him a great deal more power than that of simply being able to make recommendations. You would also give him the power to compel certain departments to take action more quickly.

Given the small amount of money that is currently available, it would practically be impossible to do that.

[English]

Ms Davis: I'm not certain I said I would give them a great deal more power. I think my comments were primarily directed at concerns about the role of watchdog, if you like, as opposed to a resource and a facilitator, someone who would assist departments. I don't see this as a large, bureaucratic office. I don't see it as one that would require significant budgets beyond what you might be contemplating.

.1125

It's more a concern related to the watchdog role, when I don't think departments in the government are ready for that. They haven't developed their own plans and may not have the resources and direction they need to get them developed and mature to a point where a function such as an auditor general can report directly to Parliament on those implementations. It's more the nature of the role of the commissioner than his or her powers. I hope that clarifies it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: You are telling us that the departments are not ready, that they haven't developed their own plans, but maybe the time has come for someone like the Environment Commissionner to come on stage because this thing has got to start somewhere. This might force them to develop their plans and prepare more diligently. I know that adjustments will be necessary in the case of some departments as to the timeframe of the environment program. It is more difficult and more complex in the case of a larger department. The commissionner could easily make recommendations on this.

The time has come to act within the departments and the Environment Commissioner has to take up his duties shortly.

[English]

Ms Davis: I don't disagree with that at all. I think it's appropriate for that to get started. It's a question of how it gets done. The fear of being reviewed, audited and reported upon is a motivator. Is it the best one? Should it be done in concert with other kinds of motivating activities? I think there may be other things that could be done at the same time through the commissioner's office to drive some behavioural changes in the department.

Mr. Forseth: As you know, readiness is always an issue for behavioural change, and you raised the warning flags today about the federal government department's readiness for change. I want to look at the more facilitative role of how the Ontario commissioner was described, compared to the bill's proposal for somewhat of a classic auditor.

Are we going in the right direction with this bill? Do we really have this champion role, as you put it? Could that champion role be the Minister of the Environment, or should the bill be enhanced? Give us your thoughts on which direction we should be going and whether the bill should be improved on this point.

Ms Davis: In my reading of the bill - and I don't profess to be a legal expert by any stretch - it seems flexible enough that in the fleshing-out of the responsibilities of the commissioner, the kinds of things I was talking about could be incorporated into job descriptions and responsibilities without significant changes to the bill, other than with respect to the time lines. I have some concern about the ability of a department to begin publicly reporting on its performance against the plan a year after it has the plan done. Each department has roughly two years to do its plan.

Some of that would be of concern, but beyond that I read it as something that could be worked out in the form of a job description, if you like, an understanding of duties.

Mr. Forseth: Related to that issue of reporting, there's an element there of the downside of concern and worry about the report. Could you just expand on that a little bit? I think we understand the positive sides, but there was a negative element there of reporting that could be a problem.

Ms Davis: On an overall government-wide basis there's some clear focus of priorities and what actions departments should tackle first, understanding they can't do it all - setting objectives that are attainable and targets that are achievable and then reporting against those. If you report too soon, before that kind of activity gets sorted out, you can do yourself, as a public organization, more damage than by getting your ducks in order, first within departments and within the government, deciding what your priorities are, what you're going to measure and how you're going to report it, and then going public with it.

.1130

It's really just a caution around...and it may be my own bias, since I work largely with the private sector, which usually says, well, we'd better wait until we're really sure about what we say here. It's not really an attempt to be secretive, but rather just to make sure those communications are well managed and you're ready to do them.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm glad you have raised the issue of developing an internal capacity within organizations to do the kinds of things we've been talking about, because it's not just a simple matter of saying ``thou shalt''. You have to have the resources, you have to have the internal capabilities, to do those kinds of things. I'm just wondering, from your experience in the private sector, if there were a few things you've been able to identify that help companies undertake successful environmental performance reporting or things along the lines of what we're talking about here.

Ms Ligeti: There are a lot of human resource-related issues. Of course there are training and education. They are critical to the successful implementation of environmental management plans in any organization.

The other is really looking very closely at the reward systems, if you like; the accountability mechanisms. In lots of organizations I've had experience with the reward system does not reward the achievement of certain kinds of environmental objectives, or it might even be in conflict with them. It's a tough one to fix, but it's something organizations need to look at pretty closely, to make sure the reward system is structured to reward these activities. Often it's not.

So those would be two of the critical pieces of capacity-building that are necessary.

The Chairman: Is that all? Then I may ask you a question.

In a way, your presentation seems to emphasize that the commissioner has an educational role within the system. At least in the initial phase that person is to be a resource person, is to provide motivation, if I understand you correctly, is to prevent potential conflict. It's quite a personality you are describing there. It's Napoleon with a velvet glove.

Keep in mind, however, two departments have sustainable development in their mandate, the new Department of Industry and the new Department of Natural Resources. In addition to that, there is a government that has made sustainable development one of its major campaign planks. In addition to that, there is a green guide, a guide on sustainable development, endorsed, signed, blessed, confirmed, by all cabinet ministers in June of this year.

So the term is not new. The concept is perhaps still a bit vague. The principles have only recently been defined. So this commissioner is not walking into a vacuum. There is a lot of theology in that temple, so to say. So there will not be situations of coming in after the fact or coming along after the fact, as you described it. Or am I too optimistic here?

Ms Ligeti: Where departments are going to need a lot of help.... They have that information. They're aware of that information, aware of the priorities. It's when you get down to actually trying to implement and operationalize these concepts into day-to-day activities that it gets difficult. What's the practical application? If I have to make a choice between what I think is the right thing to do in terms of a sustainable development objective and what I think I should do because of a fiscal restraint, a human resource shortage or those kinds of things where it gets very difficult, it is not....

.1135

The Chairman: Excuse me, but if you had a choice between pollution prevention and pollution clean-up, what would you choose?

Ms Davis: Those choices sometimes seem easier to make, but if one costs a lot more than another, I'm not sure that there are clear mechanisms for people to decide which one to select.

To me, the successful implementation of these sustainable development plans would be full integration into business plans and everything the government does, as opposed to some separate, stand-alone plan. To get down to that level of integrating it into every decision a department makes is quite profound. It takes time and it is not easy. I'm not convinced that any organization in this country, when it first embarks upon that kind of activity, has the resources or the knowledge about how to go about it.

Ultimately in the bill it indicates that the Auditor General is to indicate to Parliament if expenditures have been made without due regard to the environmental effects of making those expenditures. That's a fairly tall order, and it's appropriate and admirable. I'm just cautioning that I think departments need some help to get there.

The Chairman: Do you realize that each department will design its own plan?

Ms Davis: Yes.

The Chairman: And that each department will be measuring its own progress against the plan, with its own yardstick?

Ms Davis: Yes. That's where I have some problem.

The government needs to consider what reporting mechanisms, performance measures and indicators it wants the departments to report in a fairly consistent way so the information can be interpreted about the government's performance on environmental matters.

The Chairman: Would that particular aspect be taken care of by way of a regulatory process?

Ms Davis: I don't think a regulatory process is the answer necessarily. There are lots of activities taking place by organizations trying to develop some standards around performance measures.

As we have some fairly well-defined traditions around financial performance measures, there are people trying to develop similar kinds of performance measures around environmental performance. That's the kind of activity I think the commissioner can get involved with and then communicate that kind of information and share that knowledge with departments to try to develop a consistent reporting framework for the government.

The Chairman: How do you achieve this consistency if you don't have a common yardstick?

Ms Davis: I agree; you need a common yardstick. I think it's very difficult to get some consistency if you don't have it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Forseth: Just so you see the benefits of supplemental questions, you did very well.

The Chairman: I was taking advantage of the fact that the list was blank.

Mr. Forseth: I was there.

You introduced this idea of the overall reward system. Traditionally an Auditor General is somewhat of a whistle-blower, with the negative connotation of scolding and embarrassing the naughty one.

We have the idea of the stick, but where is the carrot? Could there be some system of awards, both symbolic and perhaps even financial? What can you comment on? What can we learn from the private sector about the overall incentive system that we're looking at in this context?

Ms Davis: Some of the incentive systems the private sector uses I'm not sure are acceptable to government, but in some examples I'm aware of, departments that achieve significant cost savings through energy efficiency programs, waste reduction programs or other environmentally motivated activities participate in those cost savings financially, either directly or perhaps through the ability to purchase equipment needed to enhance their work environment - that kind of motivation.

.1140

Of course, it's not all financial. There's also the recognition. Recognition award programs are fairly widespread. Employees, in my experience, are very interested in this topic and will participate in environmental activities, and are looking sometimes just for that recognition, as opposed to a financial reward.

So I think it's a balance of both. But I think it should also be integrated into performance evaluation mechanisms generally, all the way up through the levels of personnel. It should be a criterion that is applied to evaluating performance.

Mr. Forseth: Traditionally, the Auditor General produces all kinds of reports, and the broad public reaction is that nobody pays attention after the first headline. It's one or two days' news. Perhaps a more long-term situation would be somehow to build in, especially in this sector, some kind of award, maybe the comparable Order of Canada or something so that the agencies themselves would trumpet their own success and that would encourage the improvement of the behaviour of their colleagues.

Ms Davis: I have to say, though, having been an auditor in my past, that auditors get bashed all the time here. They do have the ability to provide positive recommendations and comments, which is why I think the kinds of notions I'm talking about here are not inconsistent with this bill. That, I think, is often not a highly portrayed role of the Auditor General - to provide positive recommendations for improvement.

Mr. Forseth: A last little supplement. Is there any recommendation in the bill that you feel needs to be changed or improved a little bit?

Ms Davis: The one thing I've mentioned is flexibility on the time line. I think there should be some flexibility with respect to that.

Mr. Forseth: Because we have the urgency of ``government's slow and we want to get onwith it''.

Ms Davis: Yes, I think it's appropriate to get on with it, but the departments don't have the resources to do it. I think it's worse to say you're going to do it by a certain time and not do a good job of it, as opposed to figuring out what the appropriate time line and resources are, and knowing that, when you set that deadline, it will be done well. That's where my concern comes from.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any final questions? If not, we thank you again for your readiness and your help and your insight. We'll keep you posted on how we make progress.

Ms Davis: I'll be watching with some interest. I enjoyed the participation again today. Thank you.

The Chairman: We will do it again on another bill, I hope. Thank you very much indeed.

The clerk is seeking authority to proceed with witnesses and also about future business. Let's deal with witnesses first. The clerk has composed a potential witness list for Bill C-94, which is knocking on the door for us, so to speak. He has composed a full page, which also contains the names on the back of the list, so those on the back are incorporated on the front page.

The question is, do you see reflected there what you have already indicated individually to the clerk? If so, he would then seek a signal to proceed. Do you want to add something?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, Mr. Chair. I've taken the liberty of adding three departments - Environment Canada, Health Canada, and Transport Canada - in consultation with the Library of Parliament. Again, I don't know if these departments are available or not.

The Chairman: Madam Payne.

.1145

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite certain whether this is appropriate, but at the risk of not knowing what I'm talking about I'll say it anyway.

I notice Fisheries is not included there in any way, shape, or form. I'm not sure Fisheries is an appropriate department -

The Chairman: It may be a point well taken. We will enquire of them whether they have any input.

Mrs. Payne: Having said that, I would also like to consider some other organizations, such as the Suzuki Foundation, perhaps.

The Chairman: The clerk can enquire of them whether they are willing. In the past we have checked with them and they have not taken up the invitation. But we can try again. Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the Health Canada list. Perhaps a request could be made that Health Canada bring the specific people who produced the report on MMT. Inasmuch as we're going to be dealing with MMT, it would be interesting to have that.

The Chairman: It would, yes, definitely. But we'll reinforce that point.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, again, being new, I don't know how this list was compiled, but I note a number of individual petroleum companies are represented on the witness list. However, their organization, which presumably speaks for them, is also on the witness list: the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. It seems to me if they have an institute of which they are all members, and that institute speaks for them, then what are they doing here? In the alternative, perhaps they should all appear at the same time, so we have one presentation.

The Chairman: Yes, it's an excellent point.

The clerk has a comment to make.

The Clerk: I would like to clarify that this list is a result of people who wrote in, so what you have in front of you is the companies that wrote and expressed an interest in appearing. In the past this committee, under the guidance of the chair and the members, has done exactly what you've suggested, as much as we could.

Also, in the event that they do want to appear, we suggest panels. In other words, you put two or three of them together on a similar theme. But I felt it was necessary to indicate to members who did write to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you. It's a well-taken point.

Mr. Steckle, please.

Mr. Steckle: Since I am new to the committee, of course, my question is whether the mining industry has been involved, or whether it should be involved.

The Chairman: Maybe the petroleum industry can do the job for them as well.

Mr. Steckle: There's somewhat of a difference between mining and refineries.

Mr. Adams: It struck me that Natural Resources Canada, given their interest in the petroleum industry and energy and so on, might fulfil Paul's idea that Natural Resources Canada are responsible for that area.

The Chairman: We will enquire of Natural Resources Canada along those lines and see whether they are ready to come.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, one other point. I note that Hill and Knowlton, which is a lobbying firm, is on the list. What are they lobbying for and why would they be interested in coming before the committee?

The Chairman: That's a good question.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that some companies have retained the services of lobbyists -

Mr. Wappel: I have no doubt.

The Clerk: - and they've written on behalf of their clients. I would guestimate that if they did appear, they would appear with their clients.

The Chairman: I'm glad you drew my attention to this. I didn't know. I would put my foot down and say definitely no. If the client wants to appear, that's fine, but not the lobbyist; definitely.

Thank you for raising that matter.

Are there any other points?

Mr. Forseth: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was looking at the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and I was really wondering if all the industry is under that group. Generally the minister, in referring to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, has mentioned the Big Three auto makers, but what about Toyota and some of those that may not be a part of that group? Perhaps we could do some refinement in looking at that.

The Chairman: We certainly can. Thank you.

Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chairman, shouldn't we add Natural Resources Canada - and Peter mentioned it - under the departments?

The Chairman: It has been added.

Mr. Finlay: It has been?

The Chairman: Yes, as a result of his intervention. We listen carefully.

.1150

You have a future business list on C-83 prepared by the clerk. As you can see, we will have a heavy week in the week of October 16. Could you please pass this list on to your offices to make sure it is transferred into your diaries so we can do a good intensive week together?

On Tuesday evening, to accommodate some people who usually have a commitment at 6:30, we'll start at 7:30 instead of 7 and finish at 9:30. There will be some flexibility on Tuesday evening.

Otherwise we'll go into Wednesday, Thursday morning and, if necessary, Thursday afternoon.

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment.

The Chairman: I will recognize you in a moment.

Some of you have expressed a wish not to start too early on Tuesday. Are there any comments about Tuesday at 9 a.m.?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'll be late.

The Chairman: What time would you suggest?

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, as a new member I'm very hesitant to bring this up. I did notice the times of the committee and they cause me some concern. I wonder if there might be consensus for beginning our meetings at 9:30 a.m.

This would allow everybody to get into their offices and get their material without having to get up early. The only committee I have ever worked on that started at 8:30 a.m. provided breakfast.

The Chairman: We will adjourn this part of our meeting and move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]