Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 3 - Evidence - April 2, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S- 216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament), met this day at 8:36 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Good morning, not only to all those in the room but to all the others on the World Wide Web and the viewers on the CPAC network.
We are here this morning with a very special piece of legislation that we are studying as part of our general mandate on environmental and energy matters. This piece of legislation emanates from a senator, my predecessor as chair of this committee and someone who has been very interested and focused on matters relevant to this committee's mandate for quite a few years, Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta.
It is my usual practice to introduce everyone. I am Senator Angus, from Quebec, and I am chair of the committee. The deputy chair is Senator Mitchell, from Alberta. To my right, we have Senator Brown, Senator Banks, Senator Lang and Senator Neufeld. On the other side, we have Senator Milne, from Ontario; Senator Merchant, from Saskatchewan; Senator Adams, from Rankin Inlet; Senator Peterson, from Saskatchewan; and Senator St. Germain, from British Columbia.
Without further ado, Senator Banks will tell us about the private member's bill, Bill S-216. It was introduced in the Senate and given first reading on January 29, 2009, second reading on March 11, 2009 and was then referred to our committee.
Hon. Tommy Banks, sponsor of the bill: You are very kind to ascribe this bill to me but, in fact, this is a bill that is a creation of this committee.
The Chair: It was created under your leadership.
Senator Banks: At the time, yes. Many years ago, the Government of Canada decided that sustainable development was a good idea and that if it was to urge others to practise sustainable development, particularly in the industrial sector, that it ought to set a good example by having its own house in order. In fact, the program the government introduced was called Federal House in Order.
As a matter of policy, it required that each government department would have a sustainable development plan. As has been frequently commented on by this committee in the past, as well as by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and by the Auditor General, that policy of having effective sustainable development plans in each government department was honoured more in the breach than in the observance.
After those admonitions by this committee, the commissioner and the Auditor General, John Godfrey, a distinguished member of Parliament who has since resigned, came forward at the time with Bill C-474, called the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which is the act that this bill before you now seeks to amend.
That act requires that those sustainable development plans of government departments be given to the Minister of the Environment, who will, in the original form of the bill, lay them before Parliament. On occasion, when and if Parliament feels so inclined, the idea was it would examine, selectively and randomly, one or two years of those sustainable development plans of government departments to find out whether they are efficacious and working — the extent to which the policy concept and idea is being observed.
When the bill was passed — which it was unanimously by the House of Commons if I recall correctly — it was sent to the Senate and referred to this committee for study. This committee recommended the passage of the bill to Parliament, notwithstanding that it found shortcomings in the bill on which it commented in observations attached to the recommendations. Those observations formed the meat and potatoes of the amendment that is now before us.
Of the two thrusts of amendments in the bill before us, the easiest one is the second one, which amends the Auditor General Act.
In the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is empowered and required to report to Parliament annually at the time specified for that report. However, due to an oversight in the drafting, no thought was given to the fact that if the commissioner were to report today to Parliament and something really important arose that came to the commissioner's attention tomorrow, it would be a year before the commissioner would be able to bring that matter to the attention of Parliament.
Therefore, the present amendment says that not only can the commissioner report during the time that is specified for him or her to do so, but also at other times of the year at which the Auditor General, of whose office the commissioner is a part, can report to Parliament. I think that would bring it to three times, if I have that right.
That is the easiest part of the amendment. It fixes the Auditor General Act so the commissioner can report more frequently, if required, to Parliament.
The harder part is with respect to a matter that I have observed five times since I have been here. On one of the occasions, it was a genuine oversight; on the other four, it has been intentional. That is a move by the other place to evade scrutiny of something — in this case, those reports — by the Senate.
When Bill C-474 was drafted by John Godfrey, the reports of government departments made to the Minister of the Environment were to be laid before both houses of Parliament. In the committee in the other place, that was amended so that when the bill was passed, it said that those reports are to be laid before the House of Commons, period.
As you can see in reading the recommendations of this committee when it recommended the passage of the bill, that is not acceptable to us. Until and unless the Constitution is changed, this place is one third of Parliament. We are one of the two houses of Parliament.
Having reports of that kind, particularly as cogently important as they are to the concerns of this committee, not being tabled in the Senate is, in my view, not in order, and that was the view of the committee. In fact, I think it is safe to say that on the occasion when we recommended the passage of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, we would have amended it and sent it back were it not for the fact that we could see the end of a parliamentary session. We were concerned that if we sent the bill back amended, we might lose it.
Also, we all knew that Mr. Godfrey intended to resign from Parliament shortly after that. Therefore, it would lose the impetus of having Mr. Godfrey and the other sponsors of the bill perhaps being able to rejuvenate it if we sent it back and if it were lost in a dissolution. Hence, to use the colloquial phrase, we determined to recommend the good rather than try for the perfect. I have that backwards, but we did not want to let the perfect stand in the way of the good.
Therefore, we recommended that passage of the bill. However, we noted — as has been pointed out by the chair at the time — in our attachment to the recommendation that we would be bringing forward these amendments to the bill. Those are the amendments that are now before us.
Senator St. Germain: Is there anything in here, other than the addition of the Senate as being part of the process, that would change Bill C-474?
Senator Banks: Yes, a consequential amendment to the Auditor General Act allows the commissioner to report more frequently to Parliament, if she or he wishes to, than at the times that are specified annually. Those are the only two effects.
Senator Peterson: What are some examples of a category one department that is supposed to be doing this?
Senator Banks: Any department that you could normally name as a function of government is a category one department, as are some other functions of government, we were told. We asked exactly that question when we were examining this bill. It is the normal departments of government that would come to your attention if you made a list in your head — National Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, you name it. Those are category one departments.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the frequency of these extra reports that will be permitted under this act. As I read some briefing, the inference is that it would really account for one additional report. That would be the assessment of the sustainable development reports to the government from departments, which would be done more quickly after those reports are presented rather than, say, a year later when the commissioner's report would otherwise be presented. Is it just one time or could the commissioner make decisions more frequently than that to report?
Senator Banks: The amendment would provide that the commissioner can make reports to Parliament on matters that she or he deems important, either on the date that is presently set out in the Auditor General Act or at any other time of the year at which the Auditor General might make a report to Parliament, which I think is twice a year.
Senator Mitchell: Therefore, it would be incorporated into that.
Senator Banks: My understanding is that it could form a part of one of those two Auditor General reports to Parliament. Therefore, the Auditor General would have more frequent opportunity.
I should explain that the impetus for that amendment, the one that amends the Auditor General Act, is a direct result of a letter that the Auditor General wrote to me asking that we make that amendment, please, in order to correct an oversight in the situation that I described earlier: If the commissioner were to report to Parliament today and something that the commissioner thought was really important arose tomorrow, he or she could not report to Parliament on that matter for a year, without this amendment.
Senator Mitchell: That is what I thought.
Senator Lang: I have done some work on this, and I want to commend Senator Banks for bringing it forward. Obviously, being a new member, it is new information to us. It is interesting to see that a pattern exists in the House of Commons where if the Senate can be avoided in legislation, it is done and knowingly done. That is not good for our process.
From the government's point of view, I think it is safe to say that they are prepared to support this in the House of Commons.
If this bill goes through — and I think it will — the letter from the Auditor General should be attached to the bill so that they are aware that this did not just come from us but from the Auditor General because there is some history here. The information will be valuable to the players in the other place.
In closing, it is a very straightforward bill, Senator Banks, and I cannot see anyone opposing anything you have said. It is very well documented.
Senator Banks: I hope I can find that letter. I do not know whether letters can be attached to bills.
The Chair: We should have the letter made part of this record. Do you have that letter?
Senator Banks: I suspect I do. I will see if I can find it. It is several years ago now. I will obtain a copy of the letter and provide it to the clerk.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Banks: Senator Lang, this is an outshoot of a conversation we had earlier and that I mentioned in my remarks to the committee. I am not sure that it is fair to say that a pattern exists of the House of Commons contriving to avoid the Senate looking at matters, but it happens more often than it should. It should not happen at all, but I am not sure that it is a pattern. I believe it is a random thing that happens sometimes by oversight and sometimes, as in this case, by clear intent.
The Chair: You might say that there is a propensity.
Senator Banks: It happens.
The Chair: It does, from time to time.
Senator Banks: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Lang, did you have other things to say?
Senator Lang: Everything has been said, as far as I can make out.
The Chair: With bills that we address here, usually a departmental official is present. You have referred to the letter from the Office of the Auditor General, and before we called this hearing today, we determined that the Auditor General is aware that we are considering Bill S-216 today. There is no one formally here and no request for anyone. Are you comfortable as well, Senator Banks, that we do not need people from there to be here?
Senator Banks: I am, more so than I would otherwise be because, as I said earlier, this committee, as it was then, is the author of these amendments, not I. I take great comfort from that.
The Chair: Are there any other questions from senators?
Do you feel, honourable senators, or do you not feel it necessary to have other witnesses? Are we okay?
Senator St. Germain: Based on past experience, the leadership of Senator Banks will suffice in this case, and we should proceed with the bill.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to comment?
Shall we, honourable senators, move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-216, an Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is carried unanimously.
Thank you very much, honourable senators.
I will now suspend the meeting so that we may move in camera to discuss future business of this committee.
(The committee continued in camera.)