A couple of notes on the dispute over the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, where the Cons seem to want to take the position that the Commissioner should do nothing at all other than monitor past programs.
First, it looks highly doubtful that even the current legislation supports the narrow interpretation of the Commissioner's role. While the section of the Auditor General Act which formally creates the position would seem to favour a limited scope of action, other provisions strongly suggest that the Commissioner has a wide degree of latitude to determine his or her own priorities.
Second, even if one assumes that the Fraser/Con position reflects an accurate view of the current legislation, it's hard to see much basis for the Cons' refusal to support a clarified role. After all, if the sole purpose of the office were to exercise the functions of the Auditor General, there would be little apparent reason to appoint a Commissioner in the first place.
Mind you, it could well be that the Cons want to foment as much controversy as possible surrounding the Commissioner to try to cast doubt on any future reports on the Cons' own programs, not to mention muddy the waters further on environmental issues in general.
But for Canadians who want to see effective action, there's every reason to want an independent office to both review how existing policies have fared, and apply that knowledge to make recommendations for the future. And the Cons' dissent against any move in that direction only highlights a lack of interest in continued environmental discussion beyond their current attempt to neutralize the issue.
(Edit: typo.)
No comments:
Post a Comment