Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of November 27, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met today at 9:32 a.m. to examine the estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
Senator Joseph A. Day (chairman) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning to all and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
The committee's field of interest is government spending and operations, including reviewing the activities of officers of Parliament and those various individuals and groups that help parliamentarians to hold the government to account. We do this through estimates of expenditures and funds made available to officers of Parliament to perform their functions and through budget implementation acts and other matters referred to the Senate.
The committee is meeting today to hear from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Ron Thompson, about his office's annual 2007 report, which was filed in October of this year. The report was tabled through the Auditor General with the Speaker in the House of Commons, as is required by the Auditor General Act.
Let me give you a bit of background: In 1995, as a result of changes to the Auditor General Act, the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was created within the Office of the Auditor General. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development provides parliamentarians with objective, independent analysis and recommendations on the government's efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development.
Mr. Thompson was appointed by the Auditor General of Canada on January 30, 2007, on an interim basis. Mr. Thompson joined the Office of the Auditor General in 1977 and served as the assistant auditor general since 1985. Up until his appointment as interim commissioner, Mr. Thompson has been responsible for financial and performance audits, including several with environmental and sustainable development components.
Welcome, Commissioner Thompson, and Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Arseneault, who are accompanying you.
[Translation]
Please go ahead with your presentation, after which we will have a period of questions and answers. You now have the floor.
[English]
Ronald Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I must say we are delighted to appear before your committee this morning. It is extremely important to all of us that parliamentarians take an interest in our work. This is a landmark day for us to be here, and we thank you.
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I should like to begin by providing a bit of historical context about the function of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I will then move on to discuss our 2007 annual report, which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 30, and then conclude with a brief summary of future work.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Andrew Ferguson and Richard Arseneault. These gentlemen are two of the three principals who run the various audits and other activities that we will be discussing this morning.
The idea of having some form of environmental auditor general for Canada had its origins in 1987 with the landmark Brundtland commission report, which introduced the concept of sustainable development. This was all discussed again at the 1992 Rio summit.
The concept was brought forward in a formal way by the 1993 Liberal government. After much discussion and consideration by Parliament and others, the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was created in 1995 and was made part of the office of the Auditor General of Canada by amendment to the Auditor General Act. These same amendments created two new government processes, namely, departmental sustainable development strategies and environmental petitions. The commissioner was given specific responsibilities with respect to each of these two processes. They were the subjects of last month's report, and we will discuss them further.
[Translation]
The commissioner was also mandated to, in effect, become the environmental auditing arm of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. In this capacity, the Commissioner and his group of about 40 professionals conduct a number of performance audits and studies each year, and report them directly to Parliament. We also help the Office of the Auditor General incorporate environmental issues, as appropriate, in all of its work for Parliament. The commissioner is appointed by the Auditor General and reports to Parliament on behalf of the Auditor General.
I would like to now move on to discuss the report that I tabled late last month. The first chapter of this report deals with sustainable development strategies. These strategies deal with issues that concern all Canadians — protection of the environment, economic prosperity, and social issues such as health. These issues are not mutually exclusive. For example, it is increasingly understood that Canada's economic health depends on its environmental health.
Sustainable development strategies were introduced by Parliament to encourage government departments to green their policies and programs. They were to do this by integrating protection of the environment with economic and social issues when developing policy proposals for the future, and when managing programs and activities of the day.
[English]
As required by the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act, we have been monitoring commitments made by departments and agencies in their sustainable development strategies for more than a decade.
Unfortunately, the ambition and momentum that existed in the early stages of sustainable development strategies have, in our view, faded. Frankly, the strategies today are what we would consider a major disappointment.
We found little evidence in our audit this year that the strategies have improved or have encouraged departments to integrate protection of the environment with economic and social issues in a substantive or meaningful way.
This year, we call on the government to carry out a thorough review of what needs to be fixed. The review should result in a concrete action plan to ensure that the government delivers results that will meet Parliament's expectations.
I am very pleased that the government has agreed with our recommendation to carry out a review and has made a commitment to complete it by October of next year. We hope that parliamentarians will take an active interest in this review. Frankly, there has never been a better time to carry out this review. Canadians are highly interested in environmental issues, and there is time for the government to adjust its approach before the next round of strategies is tabled in 2009.
[Translation]
The second chapter in my October report deals with environmental petitions, and houses much more positive results. Petitions are letters sent by Canadians to the Auditor General as a way to present their environmental concerns and questions to specific ministers of the federal government. Ministers are required to respond in writing within 120 days. Under the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act, the commissioner administers the process on behalf of the Auditor General.
Our retrospective study of petitions shows that petitioners value the process, which provides a forum for voicing their concerns and assures them of a formal response. We found that petitioners and department officials believe that petitions have had an impact on the government's management of certain environmental and sustainable development issues.
[English]
We also identified opportunities to improve the process, which include making Canadians more aware of it. Environmental petitions are a unique feature of our democracy. They contribute to public engagement, transparency and government accountability in environmental matters that are of real concern to Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I should like to conclude my remarks this morning with a word or two about future work.
In February of next year, we are planning to table in Parliament what we call a «status report,» which will include some 14 chapters that focus on whether the government has made satisfactory progress on issues that we have audited in the past, such as toxic substances, species at risk, contaminated sites and strategic environmental assessments.
Many parliamentarians find it useful when we provide them with a status report because it clearly points to areas where there has been insufficient progress since our original audits. If some of these chapters turn out to be of interest to this committee, Mr. Chair, we would obviously be delighted to appear before you to discuss them later in the winter.
Looking further ahead, we have audits that are just beginning that deal with issues such as air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, severe weather forecasting and water quality.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair, and we would now be very pleased to respond to any questions that senators may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. We appreciate your comments. Honourable colleagues will have seen the annual report was filed in October by the commissioner through the Auditor General. As I said, the report was filed in the House of Commons, as the Auditor General Act requires, and not in the Senate, but here we are studying it anyway.
I would ask for clarification respecting the status report you intend to file in February. How frequently is a status report done by your group?
Mr. Thompson: By our group, it is done infrequently. This is the first major status report, Mr. Chair, we have done, but the office of the Auditor General prepares and publishes a status report once a year. It is generally published in February. It just so happens that this year it is also the commissioner's report.
The Chair: That will be helpful; we will look forward to that report when it comes out in February.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am always interested in equity issues. Take, for example, sustainable development and how that looks at equity when you come to the mix and match of environmental and social issues — and you did mention health. Can you tell us how this is done in your department?
Mr. Thompson: The commissioner's group has looked at and continues to look at mainly environmental protection issues. We do a lot of performance auditing ourselves dealing with those issues. We report to Parliament, as you have seen. We also encourage the rest of the office of the Auditor General to look at environmental issues as they scope their individual performance audits, no matter where they are auditing. We are the watchdog in our office for auditing effectively in the area of environmental protection.
In the other issues of sustainable development, broadly speaking, within the office of the Auditor General we have a process that once a year looks at all of the issues we think are relevant for our office to examine. We cannot do them all in any one year, of course. We decide once a year what the mix of those issues should be. Some of them will obviously be environmental issues while others will deal with other aspects of the federal government's operation, including issues of equity. We have looked at equity from time to time as we have audited Revenue Canada, for example.
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada, of which we are a part, annually selects issues that we think will give a good balance across the spectrum of federal government activity for reporting to Parliament.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Arseneault, can you give me a few more details?
Richard Arseneault, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: In the Auditor General Act, there is a definition of sustainable development that says that sustainable development is a concept that is continually evolving and is based on the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns. There is a list that defines what sustainable development is about. It talks about integration of the environment and the economy, protecting the health of Canadians, protecting ecosystems, meeting international obligations and promoting equity. Equity is there; it is part of sustainable development. However, as a relatively new group, having been in place for 10 years, the focus of our work has been on protecting the environment. It is not only about the economy; it is also about the environment. The environment is a provider of resources for Canadians, for the world and for our economy. However, the environment has limits, and so we are looking at the various mechanisms the government has put in place to protect the environment.
The government has put in place a number of instruments over the years to protect the environment. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is about protecting Canadians against pollution and toxic substances. It is about pollution prevention and sustainable development.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is about assessing the environmental impacts of projects before they are constructed in order that negative impacts can be mitigated.
Other tools exist. I do not want to give a long list, but the government recognizes that it needs to do better on the environment and has put tools in place, and we are looking at how the government is doing and whether it is delivering on its promises to Canadians with these various tools.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You mentioned that equity was on of the list of things you are supposed to look at. Can you give me some examples of how you have looked at race and gender in terms of equity issues?
Mr. Arseneault: I was telling you that we focus mostly on the environment.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can you tell me why you do not do the other?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I think we do. For years, we have done quite a bit in auditing Aboriginal affairs, for example. We have a group that is tasked with doing that. We have looked at issues such as education and water on reserves, as well as off reserves. We have looked at the issues for which the federal government would have a responsibility.
As I mentioned earlier, we have also looked at issues having to do with the administration of the Income Tax Act and the equity principles that underlie that. We have done work in equity.
Mr. Ferguson, do you have anything to add?
Andrew Ferguson, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Within the context of the sustainable development strategies that we audited and reported on here, there are 32 departments that produce such strategies, some of which focus on social policy and some of which focus more on environmental policy. We audit the contents of those strategies, so if they include objectives for enhancing social equity, we will certainly audit that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: To what extent are you able to push that agenda, given that the whole thing is a little bit of a problem, which I accept? Every other panel that has come here from other departments has struggled with this, too. This is not unique.
Mr. Thompson: It is not easy, but it is very important.
In terms of our mandate, we have to avoid criticizing government policy. That is not our job. Our job is to audit the implementation of policy. That is an important principle for us to bear in mind as we go about our work.
However, we can go some distance down that road. For example, our mandate requires that when we examine a government program we determine, among other things, whether the department running the program has measures in place to measure effectiveness. We will not audit the effectiveness ourselves, but we will audit the department to see whether it has procedures in place to measure effectiveness.
Another way of getting at what you are suggesting is perhaps a more traditional legislative audit role, something we call compliance with authority. Most of these programs are enacted under one or more pieces of legislation. It is conventional auditing in the public sector that we audit to ensure that that legislation is being followed. We call that compliance auditing.
In those two ways, we would get at the issues you are referring to. That may not go as far as you might like us to, but our mandate stops us from going into policy itself.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Canada has international commitments around equity issues, so the mandate exists there.
Mr. Ferguson: We looked quickly at the strategy of the Department of Finance before we arrived here today. Although we have not audited their strategy, it does contain commitments around intra- and intergenerational equity. As they define it, it is about ensuring that the debt and deficit situation is resolved such that we do not mortgage the future of coming generations and that we create pension programs that are sustainable on which future generations can rely. They frame it in those terms.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In your presentation, you said that you are pleased that the government is going to carry out a thorough review of what needs to be fixed. Is there any place in «what needs to be fixed» to raise the issue of equity with the various departments around environmental issues?
It is usually women who raise public health issues, be it in Serpent River, in the discovery of strontium 90 in the teeth of babies in Alberta, or whatever else. It is usually mothers that do this.
Mr. Thompson: I will answer that question in a slightly different and, hopefully, more direct way. We think this review should look at how the sustainable development strategy process has been put in place, why it was put in place initially and whether it is doing what it was put in place to do.
We like to talk about sustainable development strategies as a process that forces departments to get a little bit ahead of the curve by looking into the future. We want them not only to manage the environmental protection problems that exist today, which we must do, but also to try to understand what kind of problems could come up in the future and how we could mitigate them. We want them to develop policies and programs to help do that. We also want them to look to the future to anticipate opportunities for making things better, such as investments in technology, and then to develop policies and programs that will exploit those opportunities.
It is a forward-looking set of issues related to sustainable development strategies. We do not see any evidence that the strategies themselves are driving departments to do that forward-looking work.
The other thing that is missing, as we point out in the chapter, is that sustainable development — equity issues, environmental issues — whatever they might be when added together, are not just a department-by-department issue. They are not a stovepipe set of issues but rather government-wide issues. We want consideration of an overarching strategy for sustainable development. We want that put in place with measurable and meaningful targets and to have that strategy backed up into individual departments so that they will know what they should be doing in relation to what the government as a whole is trying to do.
That overarching strategy does not exist. Without it, I would argue that individual departments are having a tough time taking the sustainable development strategy process seriously — and I would suggest that they do not — and figuring out how they could contribute something meaningful.
Our audit shows that, in the absence of an overarching strategy, and in the absence of any evidence that we have found in looking through some of these sustainable development strategies department by department of encouragement for departments to change their behaviour, something is wrong. What was intended initially simply has not happened yet. There may be good reasons for that, but that is in the past. We think the time is now to look ahead and for the government to look ahead and try to fix what we think is severely broken.
Senator Mitchell: I wish to follow up on your point about the strategic plan and the lack of an overarching direction or focus that departments and issues can be hooked into. More specifically, part of that is Kyoto and our international obligation. That would be part of any proper overarching plan, perhaps the biggest part. Will you be auditing our progress, the government's progress towards achieving Kyoto given that it is an international obligation? Will you be auditing the degree to which the government has fulfilled Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol bill?
Mr. Thompson: As you may know, Ms. Gélinas, my predecessor, issued a major report on climate change last year. That was her annual report. We will be following up that report in February of 2010. We have to allow a bit of time to elapse for action to be taken.
Now, in relation to Bill C-288, we certainly will be auditing. We are required to that act, within a couple of years — now we think it will probably be about May of 2009 — to take a look at the government's report on progress made and to assess whether it has been reasonable. We will do an audit of results, if you will, in two years.
Now, in the shorter term, however, the government put forward its plan in late August. The national round table has had a look at that plan, as they are required to do by Bill C-288. They have issued a report, which I think is quite a good report. It contains a number of serious challenges as to the integrity of the numbers shown in the government's plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a program per program basis. That is a difficult thing to do. How do you hold the rest of the world constant while you isolate any one program? That is not impossible to do, but certainly the round table had a good look at the government's first attempt at that and they have identified a number of observations and challenges that, it is hoped, the Department of the Environment will look at. By the time they do this a second time and a third time, hopefully these challenges will be worked on.
The other thing, in just sticking with the round table, there has been a trust fund created. I think you have looked at that here as part of Supplementary Estimates (A). In the national round table's report on the government's plan, they have examined whether the suggested reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of putting $1.5 billion into this trust fund are reasonable, and they have come up wanting. They have said they are not really sure these are good numbers. They cannot support them. They seem to be overstated, if anything. That is part of getting into this brave new world of trying to deal with quantifying amounts.
Certainly for this $1.5 billion, the numbers shown in the government's plan, which I believe is $1.6 billion a year for the new five years, are not very solid. That is something that perhaps you should know.
If I could just spend a minute on the trust from another dimension that may be helpful to you, I do not know. These trusts are set up in such a way that there can be no conditions attached to anyone receiving the money. The reason they are set up that way is because the government wants to set them up so they can actually record the charge, the $1.5 billion, in the prior year. This $1.5 billion has been shown as a charge to the government surplus in the year ended March 2007. That is quite a proper thing to do, but in order to do that it must be set up in such a way that the federal government cannot dictate to the ultimate recipients of this trust fund what they are to do with the money.
It may be something that perhaps the committee might want to have a talk with the Department of Finance and Environment Canada about, but it is not all that evident that that is the reality. However, I think it is. For the government to take credit for a reduction in each year for the next five years for spending $1.5 billion over which they really have no control may be a question that one may want to consider in looking at that program. I will leave that on the table for now.
Senator Mitchell: I am glad to hear you say that because I think it is a huge issue. I would encourage you to do that as soon as you possibly can.
Further to that point, it is not just the $1.5-billion trust fund that is in issue. There are other programs, we presume, that are functioning. They say they are. What has never been done, at least to the best of my knowledge, and it would have to be audited in any event, is the drawing of a relationship between the programs they say they are implementing, how much each of those programs will reasonably be expected to reduce carbon emissions, and how that relates to their, I would say, pathetic objective of 2020. Even their 2020 objective is not adequate, but even at that there is no relationship between what they are doing and how that might or might not reach that objective. I wonder whether that is something you would be focusing on?
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely. We are getting at that a bit with the sustainable development strategy audit just now because the sustainable development strategies, when you think about it, are documents that departments can use to explain what they will do and then the department informs us about what they have done in contributing to the government's overall targets. First, you need an overall set of targets. Then you need, as you have properly pointed out, a way to put those targets into operation through one or more government departments. We do not have the overall targets across the board yet, we do not have an overarching sustainable development strategy, and there is no clear way that I can see for individual departments to contribute to even the targets that are there. It is something that can be done but it needs to be done.
Senator Mitchell: Which underlies the concern many of us have, and that is that the government is simply talking, that there is really no effort to do it. In not liking Kyoto, it is not that they do not like that particular protocol; they do not like any protocol. In saying that they will wait for every country to be on side before they will implement hard targets, the government is using that as an excuse to never implement hard targets. My question would be: What if Luxembourg is the last holdout? Are they not going to implement hard targets because of Luxembourg? I really doubt they want to do it, and I think that is the hidden agenda.
My next question is: You devoted a lot of time in your report to the environmental petitions. You are quite excited about those; I am too. I think it is an excellent initiative, but it is not a huge initiative on behalf of that whole issue area of Canadian citizens having a sense that, because their government is not doing it, they want to get more involved, they want to be able to push the agenda and they want to be able to have control. However, that raises a broader issue of an environmental bill of rights. I guess that is policy so maybe you cannot comment on it. If you could, would you?
Mr. Thompson: I cannot so I will not.
Senator Mitchell: In any event, I have made my point. I think we need an environmental bill of rights. I think the petition is an idea that fits into it, but it is not enough.
The Chair: You have talked about the sustainable development strategies, these 32 government departments and agencies. Each one makes its strategy available to the public. Senators or any member of the public could review the strategy at any time. They are a three-year running document reviewed on an annual basis. Is that correct?
Mr. Thompson: They were last tabled in December 2006 in the House of Commons, so they are absolutely public documents. Under our act, we are required to monitor the commitments that will have been made in these strategies, and we do about 10 or 11 a year, to determine whether the commitments have been met.
The Chair: You also referred to the petitions. It is my understanding that over the past 10 years there have been approximately 240 petitions.
Mr. Thompson: There are a little over 250 now and going up.
The Chair: As Senator Mitchell pointed out, it is not a big number. Who typically would file these petitions? Would these be environmental non-government agencies, individuals? Who do you normally see these petitions coming from?
Mr. Thompson: There is a mixture, and a good mixture I think. Many individual Canadians write to express concerns, and they are given an answer by ministers. NGOs get involved as well. When NGOs write, they have fairly substantive petitions, and it takes the departments quite a bit of time to respond to them. There is a mixture.
I will ask Mr. Arsenault to provide a few more details.
The Chair: Mr. Arsenault, if you can describe the types of things these petitions would ask the government to do.
Mr. Arseneault: The petition is supposed to be a simple process. The petitioner asks questions or raises concerns to a specific minister and we are in the middle. We are provided the petition, we provide it to the ministers and they respond within 120 days.
There are all sorts of questions being raised. The top petitions are related to environmental assessments. People are worried about construction close to where they live or near river systems. They are asking the government about environmental assessments in relation to those projects.
Sometimes petitioners ask questions that are not of federal jurisdiction, so we cannot put them in the system. Often, they ask questions related to federal jurisdiction.
For example, with respect to pesticides, there was a petitioner who said that a particular company was announcing certain pesticides as being ecological, green pesticides, good for you, and the petitioner did not believe that. He wrote to the Minister of Health, who did an investigation and found the company to be exaggerating the properties of these pesticides. The company had to change the labelling.
Things can happen from these petitions. There are petitions on many topics related to the environment and health. Very often, the two are linked together. We talk about environmental health, about toxic substances in water and food. They want to know what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing to ensure that food is safe.
Earlier, you asked a question about the number of petitioners and who these petitioners are, and we have those statistics. When we did the retrospective this year, we received 115 petitions from non-governmental organizations. Organizations are writing petitions, but the majority of petitions come from individual Canadians — 138.
The problem with the petitions process is that it is unknown. We are thinking about ways to make it better known. Some MPs have written petitions in the past, and they have told us that the process is working and that they are getting good information from the government on issues raised. They know the government may not necessarily take action on the petition, but they will provide information on the topic.
In some cases, petitioners say they did not get an answer to their petition: The government responds giving their policy, but that is not what the petitioner wanted. However, that is what the petitions process is all about. Ministers are required to provide a response to the question. At times, the response may not meet the expectations of petitioners, but that is the way it is.
Senator Di Nino: I am wondering if you can give us information on the geographical distribution of petitioners.
Mr. Arseneault: We have that information in our chapter.
Mr. Thompson: There is also a table on page 72 that breaks it down by province and territory. Ontario has the largest number, at 104; British Columbia, 58; Quebec, 29; Alberta, 22, and then down.
Senator Ringuette: It could be proportionate to population distribution.
Mr. Thompson: It may be.
Senator Di Nino: There is a story there.
Senator Eggleton: I should like to follow up on that before I get into my general comments. I take it then you act as a clearing house. You do not pass judgment on the response from the government, you just pass it on.
Mr. Thompson: We are a little more than a clearing house.
Senator Eggleton: I am just talking about the petitions.
Mr. Thompson: I agree. We certainly do receive them on behalf of the Auditor General, pass them on and monitor the timing. Because we are an audit office first and foremost, we can also audit these things, and we do. We look at some of the responses that have gone back — we call them petition response audits. We take a selection of the petition responses and audit to see whether anything has happened.
We also monitor all of these petitions that come in to see whether there are broader issues for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada that may require an audit. We do a little bit more than a clearing house, but essentially it comes in here, goes out there, and we monitor that.
Senator Eggleton: Mr. Arsenault, the 138 you mentioned come from individuals. Prior to that, you said that many of them had to do with specific local issues. For example, a petition might be complaining about the next-door neighbour putting up an addition or tearing down a tree. How many would you put in that category versus individuals writing in with general concerns about the environment?
Mr. Arseneault: I do not have the statistics, but I would say a good number of them are about local issues. Some are raising more global issues. For example, there are requests as to what the government is doing about climate change, adaptation to climate change, things of that nature.
We have a good example of a petition. We did an audit in 2004 about assessing the environmental impact on policies, plans and programs. There is a cabinet directive to government departments to do strategic environmental assessment on any policy proposals put forward to cabinet. When we looked at that, there was a petition that came before that, and we looked at the responses some departments gave to the petition. Finance Canada gave a response to this petition stating what they had in place. They indicated they launched a strategic environmental process in May 2003, yet the department could not show that before that it had any process in place. We did an audit. "You responded to a Canadian that you have a system in place. We did an audit, we could not see it." Now they have a system in place, which is a good thing.
Because we are an audit shop, we can do audits of petition responses. We go in and see if the ministers do what they promised they would: In some cases, yes; in other cases, no. We understand that policies and positions change, and we tell that story.
Mr. Thompson: I would not want to overplay this as being a huge program. I do not think it ever will be. We are not trying to put this program in our report this time to say it should be five times bigger. Maybe it should be a bit bigger because people would know more about it. It is one of those small programs that was put in place and was creative. It seems to be working, and we think it could work better.
Senator Eggleton: It is rather interesting. I cannot imagine very many Canadians know about this at all. What will you do to make more Canadians aware of this?
Mr. Thompson: Mrs. Fraser, I and others from the office will be speaking from time to time, and we will work this into speeches so people are aware of it. I am ashamed to say the website for our office is too hard to use. We will work on it to make it more user-friendly.
There are ways we can make people more aware. We should probably be sending revised pamphlets out to members of Parliament. Over the next two or three months, we will come up with a plan and carry it out to raise the profile of this unique program.
Senator Eggleton: I appreciate your candour, but I am sorry to hear you say that sustainable development strategies have been a major disappointment and that the ambition and momentum that existed in the early stages has faded. You have said, however, that the government will review this matter. I am glad to hear that. They will report by October 2008.
It will take political will. The Harper government will have to give it political will to ensure that it becomes meaningful in the future and that departments do carry out these strategies.
I should like to know which minister is responsible for carrying out the review and who is responsible for the day-to- day work of carrying out the review.
Finally, I understand the Auditor General struck a Green Ribbon Panel in July on the mandate of your operation. The report was to come back at the end of October. Is that report now out? What are the main recommendations there?
Mr. Thompson: I will start with the review. When we concluded in the spring that we did not think the sustainable development strategy process was working as intended, we decided that we needed to call for a review. It is a great time to pause and reflect, to see what has not gone well and what might be done to fix it.
We worried about whom to address the recommendation to, frankly, because we do not like expressing recommendations the way we have in this report, which is "the government should..." When you say "the government," that can be anyone or no one.
We consulted with some current and former deputies and we spoke to PCO and Environment Canada. We agreed that since sustainable development itself is a government-wide initiative, the recommendation should be to the government, not to any one department. That then raised the question of who should respond and carry out the review.
Therefore, we wrote to the Privy Council Office, as one of the main central agencies, and asked Kevin Lynch if he would respond to this recommendation on behalf of the government or whether he would indicate which department or official can and will respond on behalf of the federal government. He wrote back and said that he would like Environment Canada to lead this review and that they would be responding to us, which they have.
Environment Canada is leading the review. In their response, which is in our report, Environment Canada indicates that they are working closely with Public Works and Government Services Canada and with the Treasury Board Secretariat and that PCO will also be involved. Environment Canada will lead the review, and the deputy minister is Michael Horgan, the man who would be put on the spot to make it happen.
It is a wonderful time to do this review. It is fine to look back and say things have not worked, but I sense a bit of a momentum to address environmental issues in a reasonable way. I am hopeful and optimistic that this review, with encouragement by members of Parliament, will create good things and get this system put in place and adjusted so that it works the way it was intended to work.
Currently, there are a couple of other countries that have put in place overarching sustainable development strategies that we do not yet have. The U.K. is fairly recent on the block with sustainable development strategies, and Sweden and the province of Quebec also have these strategies. This review can take advantage of and relate to some of the current thinking.
I am also hopeful that this review will include looking at the other powerful central agencies, not just TBS but also the Department of Finance. When you talk about environmental protection, they have a role to play as well in crafting tax policies and looking at what is in place that would either protect or harm the environment. I think it is a wonderful time for this review to be conducted.
Senator Eggleton: And the Green Ribbon Panel?
Mr. Thompson: This is an interesting panel. They have been working all summer. They are just about ready to report. When they do report, Mrs. Fraser will have a look at the recommendations. They will undoubtedly have recommendations in their report, and we will discuss them and decide what to do with them within our office. It is Mrs. Fraser's intention to make that report public with an action plan from her. I imagine that would be in January or so.
Senator Eggleton: How would that fit in to the government review?
Mr. Thompson: It would not really. This review of our practice was focussed on how well we have implemented the mandate given to us a decade ago. It was not what the mandate should be, using another legal construct; it was how well we have done with the tools we have been given.
I do not think it would have much to do with the government's review, other than the fact that, as you know, one of the things that is introduced in our act are sustainable development strategies, and we are required to monitor them every year.
Senator Eggleton: You were appointed about 10 months ago as interim commissioner. When will the position be made permanent?
Mr. Thompson: It will not be me. I must say, this is a marquee job. If I were a decade younger, I would go after this with a passion, but I am not, so I will not. We need younger people in here for sure.
One of the things we need to do is look at the Green Ribbon Panel report and decide what job description would best suit this position for the next decade. I would hope that we would have a new commissioner in place by the spring, and Mrs. Fraser would appoint that person.
The Chair: To round out the petition discussion, you said your group monitors the petitions coming from the government. There is an article by Bill Curry in The Globe and Mail on October 31 that states that, in 2004, in 24 per cent of the petition responses from Ottawa, departments did not answer the questions posed or answered only partially. In 2006, this figure had grown to 41 per cent of government responses back to the petitioners were not responsive. What do you say to that?
Mr. Thompson: I will allow Mr. Arseneault to speak about that. We do not like that at all. We look at these responses. It is an interesting situation because the minister, as you know, is required to respond.
The Chair: It sounds like Question Period.
Mr. Thompson: There is a little of that here, so we cannot go too far. If they are not answering the question, we will scream, and we have in the past. We have been finding in the last two or three years — and maybe Mr. Arsenault should get into the detail of this — that the responses have become more vague and less precise. That worries us. That may be because we have not done our job of being as clear as we might have been in terms of direction to both the petitioners and the departments.
Mr. Arseneault: Those numbers you just raised are in our chapter.
The Chair: Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Mr. Arseneault: We are worried about that. We will try to provide better guidance to petitioners in terms of how to prepare a good petition and better guidance to departments in terms of how to provide a better response. We will monitor that and report our findings to Parliament. We believe that, if we can improve our guidance, possibly things will get better. Things are not getting any better now; I suppose they are getting worse.
The other thing you have to understand is that petitioners are writing much more comprehensive, complex petitions. A petition is not only one question; it can be 50 questions with 100 pages of background documents.
From the government's standpoint, if they receive a huge petition like that, they have to put their experts on the job of responding for a week or two, so these people are not doing their program work. Sometimes the departments are under pressure and are not able to address all of the questions.
We will be providing better guidance and hopefully things will get better. We will report back to Parliament what we find.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I understand that you are also responsible for auditing various programs in different departments whose purpose is to help protecting the environment. Could you provide us with a list of programs that you have been auditing and the various departments concerned?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Thankfully, Mr. Arsenault has that at hand.
Mr. Arseneault: Over the years, we have done many audits on various topics. As Mr. Thompson mentioned, in February we will be coming up with 14 chapters. I can list the topics. These are programs of the government. We are following up on work we have done on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act regarding the assessment of substances. Some substances are toxic and the government must put regulations and programs in place to manage them.
We criticized the government for not doing a good job in the past, so we are following up to see what they are doing. We are looking at the management of pesticides. The federal government has a key role. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency assesses and registers pesticides in Canada. When we looked at this issue in the past, there were major problems. We are looking at federal contaminated sites, for example, the mines in the North. The site is a huge liability for the government. The government has recognized the liability. Now we are looking into finding out what it is doing about this liability.
We are following up on federal protected areas, species at risk, aquatic invasive species and international environmental agreements. I mentioned strategic environmental assessment earlier. We conducted an audit in 2004. The results showed that the government was not performing well, and now we are following up to see if they have improved. We are looking at greening government operations.
Senator Ringuette: Is the bottom line "yes" that you have this list?
Mr. Arseneault: Yes, and much more than that.
Mr. Arseneault: Can you provide the clerk of the committee with that list?
Mr. Arseneault: Absolutely, we can.
Senator Ringuette: In the last year, we had a major discussion in the Senate, and questions were not answered and answers were not acceptable, about a program that had been in place for a number of years to enhance the ability of Canadians to look at energy conservation and efficiency in their household. Have you conducted an audit of that program in the past? I am saying "in the past" because the program was cancelled for a while. I think it has been reinstated. Can you give me information on this program?
Mr. Thompson: We certainly can. It was part of our climate change report last year, and Mr. Arseneault was responsible for that chapter.
Mr. Arseneault: It was part of the overall work we completed. We looked at selected programs in Natural Resources Canada, NRCAN, some of which dealt with the issues you raise. There are other issues as well, for example, wind power, incentives and so forth. We have looked at those programs. They promised reductions in greenhouse gases, and we looked at them to see how reductions were measured. As well, the targets were changing all the time.
We looked at the programs to see if they were well managed, and we concluded that the government was doing a good job. However, it was not clear what these programs would achieve. Targets were changing and they were not clear. We made recommendations to the government to clarify these things.
Senator Ringuette: My question is with respect to this specific program. The different numbers regarding the cost, efficiency and end result of the program were questioned. Nobody seemed to agree on numbers, but you are the audit arm. You have looked into the program. Can you supply us with the result of your audit regarding the efficiency, management and objective of the program, the efficiency with respect to homeowners' energy conservation and so forth?
I realize that you may not have all that in front of you, but if you could provide that to the clerk as soon as possible, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Arseneault: We can look at what we have. I believe it was audited as well in the past by the office of the Auditor General. We will look at what we have, and we can put a package together. We may not have answers to all your questions.
Senator Ringuette: Different departments conduct environmental impact studies on mostly infrastructure. What is your role with respect to those environmental impact studies, whether they are solely performed by the federal government or as a partnership between the federal government and the provinces, municipalities or other organizations?
Mr. Thompson: The basic role is to ensure that what is required to take place takes place. A follow-up audit will come out in February that will address that issue. We will try to figure out whether what has been put in place, for example, by cabinet directives some years ago, is working. We have comments on that subject that I will not share with you today. In February, we will have comments.
Mr. Arseneault: We will conduct a big audit on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There are triggers for the federal government. If the federal government spends money, or there are regulatory powers and authorities of the federal government, then the federal government must be involved in an environmental assessment of a project. It could be a bridge, a building, or whatever. We have performed audit work in the past. Mr. Ferguson will lead this audit, and we will report in the spring of 2009.
Senator Ringuette: That is a long way off.
Mr. Arseneault: We do not look at all the environmental assessments that are done, obviously. When we conduct an audit, we select specific case studies. We will look at the management of this piece of legislation because there are responsibilities for the Canadian environmental assessment agencies. Also, all federal departments can be federal authorities. The Minister of the Environment is the lead. We need to look at how things are implemented.
Senator Ringuette: Industry Canada and its economic development arms provide a lot of federal funding to different industries, for example, the textile industry.
Do you look into the environmental impact studies that are performed or that are required by Industry Canada prior to allocating funds? Do you look at those particular situations?
Mr. Ferguson: That is something that we could look at under a significant event audit, SEA, for example. As we mentioned before, whenever each government department has a program or policy to spend money, government is required to produce a strategic environmental assessment of that program or policy.
Senator Ringuette: However, you said that you have had major disappointments in regard to department strategies. Will Industry Canada be one of your focuses in regards to looking at strategies and how they have been implemented before they provide funds?
Mr. Thompson: I may answer that question perhaps a little indirectly, and I am not trying to be disingenuous, senator. As I said earlier, we audit whether procedures that have been designed and implemented either by law or by cabinet directive have been put in place and followed. It is a compliance audit, as we said.
If we decided to look at that piece of legislation, then we would look at the most relevant departments required to comply with that legislation to see whether they have complied.
We have a little problem this morning because we have a report coming out in the middle of February that deals with that subject. I cannot comment on what we found, but that is the way we would approach it.
Senator Ringuette: Can we issue an invitation to come back to the committee in February to relook at the issue and the situations that you have found?
Mr. Thompson: We would be delighted to come.
Senator Murray: I have comments to make to which the witnesses may or may not wish to respond, as they see fit.
First, you mentioned federal contaminated sites, and I cannot resist the opportunity to mention that after the Second World War, and perhaps during it, the Department of National Defence dumped all kinds of awful stuff in canisters and whatnot into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of my birthplace in Cape Breton. While I have been an Ontario senator for the past 28 years, I am still aware that local groups there have been on the government's case, in particular, to try to learn the location of these materials and what the government will do by way of remedial action.
Second, I appreciate the administrative reasons your shop was placed under the umbrella of the Auditor General. However, I tend to think that the time has come to take you out from under that umbrella and give you a separate and autonomous existence. You may or may not want to comment, but I see no reason why you should be left there.
Third, the issue has been raised somewhere, if only in our briefing notes, of whether your organization should be an advocacy or an audit group. I come down on the side of audit. There are plenty of advocacy groups around. In your case, as with the Auditor General, the audit speaks eloquently. While you and the Auditor General of Canada must place the facts in some kind of a narrative, and while some editorial comment is always in order and appreciated, I still think you are better to stick to the audit. The facts speak for themselves, as with the Auditor General of Canada.
Fourth, I hear what you are saying about the need for an overarching strategy, and I agree with you. Still, since 1995, the departments have been required to prepare sustainable development strategies, and your testimony is, among other things, that departments may meet the letter of the law but most do not respond to the spirit of it. More important for our purposes here is that, for the most part, senior managers in departments have not demonstrated that they take the strategies seriously and few, if any, parliamentary committees have considered them. I want to dwell on that subject for a moment.
I will go back to another government-wide initiative from a long time ago, that is, the Official Languages Act of 1969. Anyone coming in today could scarcely believe what a radical departure from practice that act was. Other than perhaps the Second World War and the immediate postwar period when the government had to gear up, I do not think anything has matched the policy and administrative challenge that faced the Government of Canada at every level in turning this enormous machine around, which was wall-to-wall English; to bilingualize the government to provide service in both official languages, language of work in both official languages and equitable representation of both languages. That challenge was in 1969.
Generally speaking, there was political will in the government and in Parliament, and there was central direction given to implementing that act over time. By 1980, 11 years after the act was passed, progress was still, let us say, uneven. Not only was there political will and administrative direction, a Commissioner of Official Languages rode herd on the whole process. We formed a joint committee on official languages. We had an annual report from the Commissioner of Official Languages before us. The committee heard from some ministers — the ministers of Justice, Treasury Board and what is today Canadian Heritage — because they had overall responsibility. Over time we took the commissioner's reports and other information that came across in our representational role as members of the House of Commons or the Senate, and we brought deputy ministers in, one after another. Not to put too fine a point on it, we put their feet to the fire. Over time, I think it was found that this exercise was a salutary one. You mentioned parliamentary committees, and I think the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, or its counterpart in the House of Commons, should take this issue on.
Here we have your report, which indicates: Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, progress unsatisfactory; Citizenship and Immigration Canada, unsatisfactory; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, unsatisfactory; Health Canada, unsatisfactory; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, unsatisfactory; Industry Canada, satisfactory; Justice Canada, unsatisfactory; Natural Resources Canada, satisfactory; Transport Canada, satisfactory; and Western Economic Diversification Canada, satisfactory.
The good, the bad and the ugly can be summoned to the committee. We had such eminent personages at the Official Languages Committee as the Governor of the Bank of Canada to explain what was done in his organization to respect the law and the policy, and I think it had a salutary effect. The situation of the Government of Canada with regard to official languages is light years from what it was in 1969, and even in 1980. Committees are still in place because we must continue to be vigilant.
Finally, I am sorry that a person of your relative youth and good health is winding down when the rest of us must work until we are 75.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for that kind comment, senator.
In terms of parliamentary interest, I could not agree more. I have been in the audit business for over 30 years, and it seems to me that action on important issues happens when parliamentarians become involved through committees. I have seen wonderful things happen over my 30 years. We have a good government and a good Parliament, and when things must be done, they are done.
You mentioned debt, deficits and other issues that were dealt with over the last decade. These issues are not small, and they can be addressed.
We appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last week. We tried hard to interest the committee in the need for this review and to have it ride herd on Environment Canada as it conducted the review, because that is where the real benefit will come. I hope that committee is interested.
On Thursday of this week we will appear before the Senate Environment Committee, and we will encourage them to take an interest in the review as well.
We can compare one department to another until we are blue in the face, but it is time to sit back and look at the overall governance and organization of this task and put in place certain things that are not now in place. Then we can compare one department to another.
We are encouraging departments to support this review, and to look over the government's shoulder to be sure it is done well and that the recommendations are reasonable and implemented.
In terms of audit as opposed to advocacy, I agree with you. There is a lot of power in audit. We would not try to be involved in advocacy. We have made the point a couple of times over the last several months that we do not believe we can be policy advocates as well as auditors. If we go into that business, we will soon be seen to be auditing something that we ourselves have created, which would mean that our findings would have no credibility.
When we look at whether the commissioner's function should be within the office of the Auditor General, I think it should be here, but then again, I am only the interim commissioner. It will be where Parliament decides it will be, certainly. To move it out would require a change to the act, and we understand that.
I believe there are advantages to having it here, and the biggest advantage is clout. When we come out with a finding or a set of findings on issues relating to environmental protection, people listen. We are part of a 600-strong nationally and internationally recognized legislative audit office. We have all the benefits of being part of that office and I think it is a wonderful placement for it.
Someone asked me the other day when the commissioner of the environment will be independent. I would argue strongly that we are now. I cannot imagine being any more independent. We look at what we want to look at. We report directly to Parliament on what we find. People do not tell us not to report that, or if we report it to report it on a Saturday morning at eight o'clock, or whatever. They do not tell us that because of where we are situated. There are advantages to being where we are, and I guess I am a little biased because I have been here for 30 years, but that is only a point of view.
In terms of advocacy, we have always found that we are advocates of good management. I think there is a big difference between advocating good management and advocating policy. In this particular case, we are strong advocates of sound environmental management, but certainly we would not try to criticize one policy as opposed to another. That is not our job at all.
You will be happy to know, senator, that in February — we may be back for a couple of reasons — we have conducted a small audit on military dump sites, and we will have findings related to that. It is one of the petition response audits that I mentioned earlier. We have taken a look at what has been done, and that will be in our report in February.
Senator Di Nino: One of the advantages of being so far down the list is that a lot of the issues have been dealt with. I wonder, in some cases, if we could have clarification.
The first question you dealt with to some degree but, specifically, do you believe that your mandate is strong enough for to achieve your objectives?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, yes, I do. The work we have done over a decade has been good quality work. We looked at how well the federal government has protected the environment, if I can put a small focus on it that way.
The best example would be the last 2006 report on climate change. That report addressed the right issue I think at the right time. It received a tremendous amount of attention within Parliament and throughout the land, and I might add, internationally too.
I believe we can do a tremendous amount with the mandate we have. Maybe we can do more in certain areas. We will see what the green ribbon panel recommends to us, but I think we have a good mandate, and a good mandate that allows us to serve members of Parliament well.
Senator Di Nino: Does the review that has been undertaken to look at this whole issue include a review of your authorities and responsibilities?
Mr. Thompson: It reviews how well we have discharged the authorities and responsibilities granted to us by the Auditor General Act. It does not look at what we could do with a different act.
Senator Di Nino: I have a question about your authorities. We spent time at the beginning of the meeting on this $1.5-billion trust. This is really a cooperative or a joint partnership agreement with the provinces and the territories.
Do you have authority to engage the provinces and territories in your audit process?
Mr. Thompson: Technically, senator, I believe we do. This authority came out of amendments made last year, the fall-of-the-dollar idea. Ms. Fraser has mentioned a number of times that we would use that provision rarely if at all. We do not want to use that provision a lot. It can take us down rabbit holes that perhaps would not serve anyone well.
However, in this particular trust, even if we could engage the provinces and territories, I am not sure what we would audit. As I mentioned earlier, as I understand the trust, once the money is given to the trust, no conditions attach to the provinces. I do not know what we would audit, even if we were to go to the provinces.
Senator Di Nino: Can you follow the money, so to speak, to see whether this money was invested, if you wish, for environmental reasons?
Mr. Thompson: I do not think so. We can inquire, but as I understand the trust arrangement, senator, we can ask what they have done with it, but we cannot say they were supposed to do X and Y with it, and did they not do that. I do not think there is that kind of structure to the trust.
Senator Di Nino: Do you think that is a weakness in your mandate?
Mr. Thompson: No, I do not. If we wanted to perform an audit that relates to a federal-provincial issue, for example, we would do it jointly with the provinces.
For example, I was involved in a joint audit we conducted four or five years ago of the salmon industry. We performed that audit together with the Auditor General of British Columbia and the Auditor General of New Brunswick. I think it worked out well. We each had our own reports that were tabled on the same day. Then, we had a common report that everybody signed off on. In situations like that one, we can use that vehicle to address common issues.
For us to audit in a big way what other levels of government have done with money provided by the federal government, I think that is a rabbit hole, sir, that we would have a hard time getting out of.
Senator Di Nino: The reason I ask is because the federal government provides funds to a variety of partners and a variety of joint ventures, for example, educational funds for certain things, $2.4 billion of eco-energy money, $8 billion for extension of the gas tax fund, et cetera. It must be tough for you to come out and say that money was well spent if you do not have the authority or the mandate to follow it to see, in effect, if those public monies have been expended in the right areas.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, the reason I am satisfied with the mandate we have, when we look at a program administered by the federal government, is that one of the questions we ask is whether they know themselves whether they are effective and achieving results.
If they do not, we say so, and we harp on that until the department or the program puts in place a reasonable way of measuring results. At the end of the day, it is up to the department to manage the program and to determine the results achieved, not us. Therefore, I think our mandate is strong in that way, senator.
Senator Di Nino: In effect, you take their view as to whether the program is effective?
Mr. Thompson: Not necessarily.
Senator Di Nino: That is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Thompson: If the department says, we can measure this or we are measuring this, and we know whether it is effective, we would look at how they are measuring it. We would look at the procedures that they have put in place to satisfy themselves that the desired results are achieved. If that measurement is inadequate, we would say so.
[Translation]
Senator Biron: Are you in favor of a carbon exchange allowing trading of carbon units by polluters, and do you believe that this would have a favourable effect on the environment and could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? And do you have any idea of the impact this has had in European Union countries where a carbon exchange does exist?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: I will begin, senator, and then pass it over to Mr. Arseneault or Mr. Ferguson. In terms of whether emission reduction trading mechanisms are in place, that issue is a matter of government policy and we should not talk about it. If the government decides to go one way or another, then we would look at how well the government has implemented that approach. In a simple way, that is as far as we can go.
Perhaps Mr. Arseneault has something to add.
[Translation]
Mr. Arseneault: Last year, when we made the major audit of the management of the climate change issue by the federal government, we did examine the matter of a carbon exchange, because the government at the time and particularly Minister Dion, in his green plan, wanted to put forward such a system.
It had been debated for years in Canada. And in the end, in the government's green plan, it was decided to go forward with this plan. At the time, we did an assessment to examine how such a system would be implemented. We made comments on that in our chapter and we indicated to the government where there were some risks. We know that the new government is going in another direction and this is a political decision.
When we report in 2010, we will examine the situation; we made key recommendations in our reports in 2006 and we will see what the government will do about it.
The question is not whether we agree or not with the process. That is what the government had decided to do at the time. We made an audit and we set out our findings. We now have a new government that may have a different philosophy. We will wait and see how the situation will develop in the future.
Senator Biron: Could you send me the findings of the 2006 report?
Mr. Arseneault: Of course.
[English]
The Chair: What is the total number of individuals who work under your umbrella?
Mr. Thompson: We have over 40 in our commissioner's group, and that group is part of a total of about 600 in the Office of the Auditor General.
The Chair: Are they financially or technically oriented?
Mr. Thompson: I am one of the few accountants in the group. Most of my colleagues have a background, one way or another, in environmental sciences. They are well qualified to look at these issues.
The Chair: With respect to your budget, do you have a separate vote? I could not find anything in the supplementary estimates. Do you have a separate vote for your group of environmental auditors or are you part of the Auditor General and you negotiate with her each year?
Mr. Thompson: We are part of the Auditor General's vote. As far as I can see, we have not had any trouble obtaining our fair share of the vote.
The Chair: That is helpful for senators to know.
The work you are doing, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Arsenault and Mr. Ferguson, is important for us, as Parliamentarians, to encourage policy development and ensure existing laws and regulations are followed. We thank you for the work you have done. We look forward to your February report and to talking to you at that time.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for inviting us here this morning.
The Chair: This meeting is now concluded.
The committee adjourned.