[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 19, 1996
.0840 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We will get on with our work. Today, we welcome a special delegation made up of Mrs. Leone Pippard and Mrs. Ann Dale, Mr. Glen Munroe and Mr. Russ Kisby.
Our discussion this morning will be about SustainABILITY, the National Communications Program in Support of Sustainable Development.
[English]
We are very glad to have this opportunity to have you here, Ms Pippard, and to hear you. Perhaps without further delay you could start your presentation. I am sure there will be questions on the initiatives that may follow. The floor is yours, and you're more than welcome to start.
Ms Leone Pippard (Manager, Development Phase, SustainABILITY): Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving my colleagues and myself the opportunity to introduce the SustainABILITY project through the Committee on environment and sustainable development.
We have requested this study in order to know what Canadians think about this program and to know if they believe the program is worthy of the Canadian government's support.
[English]
There will be three presenters, as you have indicated: Glenn Munroe, founder of the Canadian Buy-Recycled Alliance and senior consultant with LURA Group, a company specializing in environmental planning and communications; Russ Kisby, president of ParticipACTION, a non-profit organization and communications company that creates social change campaigns and delivers them to Canadians; and me, a former member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and manager of the NRT-initiated SustainABILITY program, development phase.
After the presentations, Mr. Chairman, and your ensuing questions, Ann Dale will make a closing statement. Ann is chair of the Canadian Consortium for Sustainable Development Research and senior associate with the Sustainable Development Research Institute of the University of British Columbia. As well, Ann is the former director of operations of the national round table.
The Chairman: It is customary in this committee to hear all of your presentations and comments before the question period. If Ann Dale could speak at the conclusion of your presentation it might be better, because it gives us an additional dimension.
Ms Pippard: Very good.
We are also very pleased that Clifford Lincoln, member of Parliament for the riding of Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis, will also give his perspective on this initiative. I suggest that Mr. Lincoln follow after Mr. Kisby before Ann Dale makes the closing statement.
.0845
When we speak of the program SustainABILITY, we are speaking about a comprehensive strategy, which is presented in detail in the program's strategic and background documents developed over the last year. Within the next thirty minutes we will touch on only three aspects.
One is to present the context and rationale for why Canada needs a sustainability program to advance sustainable development, and why a ParticipACTION-style strategy was strongly endorsed in our program outreach as being the model to build on. The second objective is to describe the program's central aims and provide you with an understanding of several of its components. The third objective is to indicate why the Government of Canada should take a lead role and partner with the private and volunteer sectors to deliver this program to Canadians.
As the starting point for this presentation, one important strategy has been identified repeatedly for meeting the challenge of sustainable development: every major national and international body since the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, the Brundtland commission, has cited the need for a mass communications campaign to help change public attitudes, values and behaviour with respect to integrating environmental and social considerations into economic decision-making. Generally speaking, they have echoed that quote from the Brundtland report that you see before you.
Canada as yet does not have such a campaign, though it has been recommended by our own task forces, commissions, and national and provincial round tables many times over. The quote on the slide obviously indicates that the National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy recommended this kind of program.
We believe that if the Government of Canada is sincere in its commitments to reap the advantages to be had from pursuing sustainable development - that is, an economy that sustains people and their well-being; a clean, healthy environment; a society that meets the value aspirations of its citizens, and produces services and products that compete in the world marketplace because they factor in sustainability rather than ignoring it - then the fastest way to the goal is through mounting a sustained mass communications program in support of sustainable development.
Indeed, this is what has prompted so many people and organizations thinking about sustainability to say that we need a ParticipACTION-style campaign to do for sustainability what ParticipACTION did for fitness. That was the conclusion of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy when it decided to try to catalyse this program, which led to the involvement of ParticipACTION and led to SustainABILITY's developmental phase. This phase was supported by every province and territory, by the federal government, by a leading Canadian foundation, by a labour union, by a sustainable development institute, by an international agency and by a private sector company. It engaged 45 leading Canadians on its technical advisory committee and 135 of what we call practising sustainability practitioners across Canada in the program's design.
What did all these players, those on that slide and those in our program, mean when they said we needed a ParticipACTION-style campaign? They meant that it is moving the sustainability idea out of government strategies, where it exists in plenty, to where the public can see it on a subway, in a newspaper, on the television or enacted in a community. It is making the idea of sustainability personally relevant and engaging for Canadians, so as to rally their support. It is redefining and reinforcing existing efforts. It is conveying solutions rather than defining problems, and it is creating a sense of national movement towards a goal that is surely in the national interest. All of these strategies were successfully used to mobilize Canadians when fitness was the goal to be served in the national interest. People see that they can be remobilized for developing sustainability.
.0850
How can it be done? Essentially, it can be done by providing Canadians with a new looking lens on development, by helping Canadians consider their choices and options, and by leading people to action. Let's quickly look at each aim in turn.
The first aim is providing a new looking lens on development. One of our design team members, Cameron Smith, a former editor of The Globe and Mail, said:
- More than anything else achieving sustainable development is an attitude, a mental stance. It is
seeing the world differently... through a different looking lens.''
- We need a program, then, that allows the public to see what development looks like through this
looking lens: how waste can become food in product production; how product production can
become cyclical, eliminating waste entirely; how a sustainable economy can use fewer and
fewer resources, but more and more people; how buildings can be redesigned to break
efficiency barriers; how government incentives can work to eliminate the waste mentality; and
how consumer selectiveness in purchasing can quickly drive the economy. SustainABILITY
offers such a program.
As you probably know, much is in fact already happening in Canada and internationally at the individual, group, corporate, government and community levels that is contributing to a sustainable society. But - and it's a big ``but'' - unfortunately most of these actions are not well-known by Canadians. The use of learning stories in SustainABILITY's communications will therefore reinforce the commitment of those already engaged in the pursuit of sustainable development and sustainable living, will provide practical, real-life how-to examples to encourage ready-to-act individuals to act, and will provide support for other programs, including SustainABILITY's own community-based social marketing efforts.
Additionally, in the national public service campaign, a 1-800 number will be promoted to help interested individuals find out how they can obtain more information and how they can link up with others locally, regionally and nationally. This 1-800 number is part of what we call the SustainABILITY network, which combines on-line access to information, tools, resources, and organizations with a human field team that will be identifying opportunities for action and for skill building while at the same time feeding back into the national office of SustainABILITY ideas for further messaging and skill building.
The second aim is helping Canadians to consider their choices and options. Building upon national public service advertising and media relations and programming components, the citizens forums component of SustainABILITY was desired by many participants in the SustainABILITY consultations. Why? In order to create a communications program that it is a two-way communications program - that is, to the public and from the public back to decision-makers.
.0855
The forums will be used to present the idea that living sustainably is a question of conscious choice - choice of which values we hold as being important and choice of how we apply those values in our day-to-day decisions, whether it be in purchasing goods or services or designing goods and services.
The forums are intended to simulate examination of various sustainability issues with the aid of educational tools. For example, topics might be Canada's energy options, or Canada's economic path: which route for the 21st century. The aim is to help people work through the options and their conflicting values and attitudes, because conflicting values and attitudes, ladies and gentlemen, are largely what are impeding our progress on sustainable development. I'm sure this really doesn't need to be said to this committee.
Aim three is leading people to action. Leading people to action means to the tools, skills, programs, networks and, as Glenn Munroe shall indicate to you next, to the props that will assist Canadians in taking action. The six components of sustainability that will lead people to action are community-based initiatives or actions, cooperative activities and twinning, community challenges, citizen forums, the SustainABILITY network, national public service advertising, and media relations and programming.
Glenn Munroe will speak to how leading people to action will be accomplished in one way through the SustainABILITY component called ``community action''. Before he does, however, I would just like to put up this next slide, which shows you all of the components in sustainability as related to the essential aims of the program.
I will end my presentation by just saying that the deep communications strategy that is SustainABILITY is not promoting environmental citizenship. Instead, at a time when Canadians are now profoundly concerned about the viability of their economy and the cohesion of the Canadian community, it emphasizes common cause in engaging Canadians in seeing and realizing what is in fact their vision of a better future and a better society. It does this by focusing on the development pathways that are integrating their three key aspirations - human well-being, a healthy and clean environment, and a prosperous economy.
Our background research for this program tells us that Canadians have the values that would lead Canada to being a sustainable society. What's missing is their reinforcement. Therefore, we don't have to persuade Canadians. Rather, we have to present the logic of the new paradigm as common sense - the most natural ideas under the sun. Canadians will agree.
Thank you.
Mr. Glenn Munroe (Senior Consultant, LURA Group): As Leone has indicated, I'm going to talk about one example of community action, a project that we call the ``Buy Green'' initiative. This is a program to promote the purchase of environmentally preferred products by consumers, using community-based social marketing principles. What I'm talking about is a large initiative with a number of components.
To start, why buy green? Why focus on this particular aspect of sustainability? I like to think of it in terms of four key words: power, empowerment, integration and stimulation. I'm going to go through these one at a time.
First is the power. We believe it is extremely important to harness the power of consumers to help the environment. There's an enormous amount of power in the ebb and flow of money every day as people make their purchases. It could be an incredible force for positive change if we can find a way to harness it.
.0900
Second, it's the point of greatest individual power to effect change. This is the empowerment aspect. For people who want to do something to help the environment but feel they don't know what to do, they have an opportunity every day to help the environment if we can help them to do that. In other words, they can help if they have the knowledge and ability to make decisions based on environmental impact.
Third, buying green integrates sustainability with everyday life. It's something that people do every day. It's the concept of bringing sustainability right down to the community level, right down into your everyday actions.
Finally, we think that buying green will stimulate the green products and services industry, making it more competitive in the area that we believe is going to be very important in the years to come.
What do we mean by ``green''? This is actually quite important, because as most of you are aware, almost anybody can say they have a green product. For the purposes of this initiative we would define ``green'' as third-party-certified products such as those Environmental Choice has certified. There are also other programs such as Power Smart now operating that provide that kind of certification. More recently, another kind of certification has come up, which is self-certification. The Canadian Buy-Recycled Alliance does this. A company signs a form certifying that their product has the characteristics they claim it has.
The initiative itself has three main components. First of all, there would be background market research on what people's attitudes are, followed by a series of pilot projects across the country in different municipalities and in different types of retail outlets, followed by the final stage, assistance with specific programs set up by stores in different parts of the country. All of this would operate under the umbrella of the SustainABILITY campaign.
How would the pilots work? They would be in different stores, such as grocery stores, building supply centres and hardware stores. There would be advertising. There would be signs to tell people what's going on, to let them know what the concept is. There would be prompts on shelves to indicate to people which products are environmentally preferred and why. There would be personal contact, with people talking to customers as they come into the store. There would perhaps be a short video that people would be asked to watch.
Commitment strategies would be used. Commitment strategies are things like having people sign great big signs that go up on the wall so that the names are up there for everybody to see. It's a commitment to buy green whenever possible. Another strategy would be asking them to wear little buttons as they walk around the store doing their shopping. These kinds of strategies have been shown to be very effective in getting people to start thinking of themselves as consumers.
Finally, we would monitor the results to make sure that we know what kinds of impacts there are.
A similar program is already working very well in the United States. It's called ``Get in the Loop - Buy Recycled.'' It was started by the King County Commission for Marketing Recycled Materials, a not-for-profit in the United States. In 1985, there were 863 retail outlets in the area of western Washington and Oregon participating in this program.
This slide indicates some of the results, which were some very high percentage increases in the purchase of recycled products, a 25% increase overall. Importantly, this has been shown to be a lasting effect. They run the program as I've described it, with prompts and signage and so forth, for one month, once a year.
This slide indicates how we see this particular initiative unfolding over time. The top row is the national level and the bottom row is the local level. We need to do research at the national level in phase one, followed by a series of pilot projects. I should say at this point in time that the Halifax Regional Municipality has already indicated their willingness to go ahead with one of these pilot projects. They would be providing the majority of the funding.
In phase two, we would have the social marketing campaign, which is the sustainability overall umbrella, but we would have assistance in program implementation included. Once the materials are developed for the pilot projects and the research, these materials will be made available to municipalities and retailers across the country to set up similar programs.
.0905
In summary, we believe this to be a very practical initiative to develop practical tools for promoting green consumerism across the country, for effecting permanent behaviour change, and for resulting, we believe, in more green products being sold, which in turn will stimulate our environmental industry.
That's all I'd like to say this morning. I'll turn the floor over to Russ Kisby, who is going to talk about the relationship between ParticipACTION and SustainABILITY.
Mr. Russ Kisby (President, ParticipACTION): Mr. Chairman, members of the standing committee, my colleagues have explained this very comprehensive strategy, which we have called SustainABILITY, and given a very practical example, one of many we could provide, of how it would operate at the local level.
You may wonder, however, why an organization like ParticipACTION, better known for health and personal well-being, is associated with this sustainable development initiative. Quite frankly, I think the success, the experiences and the strategies that we have found to work in the health field are equally adaptable to this important area of sustainable development.
ParticipACTION became involved at the request of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We were asked specifically to assume management responsibility for, first of all, generating the financial support for the development phase and then providing the management for that phase itself. As my colleague has indicated, we succeeded in getting financial support from all of the provincial governments, the private sector, a major foundation, an international institute and the Government of Canada. Through that development phase, we applied our successful strategies and looked at the extent to which they could be adapted to this particular program.
Mr. Chairman, ParticipACTION was and remains committed to sharing its experiences with the management team of SustainABILITY if this initiative should proceed. Further, as requested by many within the advisory committee, if it is the wish of the funders of this program, we are equally prepared to continue playing a management role.
Why has ParticipACTION been identified? What are some of those strategies and successes? ParticipACTION, as you may well know, was established in 1971 by the Trudeau government. We were created to promote government policies, but from a position of relative independence - to operate outside as an independent, non-profit corporation at arm's length from government and from the private sector. Today, 25 years later, ParticipACTION continues to operate under the direction of a volunteer national board of directors, a small core staff of professionals, and offices in Montreal and Toronto from which we serve the country.
Some of our achievements: Over 25 years, Health Canada has contributed $17.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that's well under $1 million per year on average. At the same time, we've taken that government funding and leveraged $32.5 million from the private sector, and I'm talking real dollars here. In terms of our donated media exposure, what we're perhaps best known for, in 25 years we've had over $260 million of donated media exposure. For each of the last 10 years we've averaged over $15 million a year, and we have never paid one penny for any time or space on any of that media. It has been 100% donated. We have over 2,500 media supporters from television, cable, radio, daily and weekly newspapers, outdoor transit, professional publications and newsletters, which are all reserved on a regular, personalized basis from us to mount that campaign.
It's not surprising, I suppose, with that level of exposure, that the name and awareness of ParticipACTION across Canada is 89%. Within one or two percentage points, that 89% awareness is true for both French-speaking and English-speaking eastern Canadians, western Canadians and central Canadians.
.0910
More importantly, perhaps, our messages are perceived by Canadians as being practical, positive and authoritative. We provide information in simple, straightforward and sometimes entertaining forms that Canadians can use to make informative decisions.
Some of our major initiatives have involved community-based action. One program we operated for over ten years involved each year more than 560 communities across this country. Those communities could not participate unless the city council in their community approved that participation.
What is important is that for this project each year the communities donated over 700 paid personnel to work, usually for about two months, with ParticipACTION on their community initiative. We generated over 22,000 volunteers each year. Each year, for at least the majority of the years, we had over 4.2 million Canadians register their participation.
What is interesting is that in the first three years of that program we had modest funding from Health Canada, complemented by private sector funding. From year four to year ten, no government funding was provided at the federal level. It was funded 100% by the private sector, and that funding continued to increase.
That kind of model was very important when we were asked by both the Government of Canada and Petro-Canada, sponsor of the 1988 Olympic torch relay, to become involved in the community animation, to create the excitement at the community level. We applied those same skills when invited to participate in the Canada 125 program, in which we had over one million volunteers during that year.
ParticipACTION's strengths are, I would suggest, the same as we are proposing for SustainABILITY: to create government-industry joint ventures; to take modest public sector investment and leverage it through both private sector and volunteer sector support; to attract private sector sponsorship for highly targeted public education strategies; and to generate extensive media awareness and media support that enhances all of the components of the SustainABILITY program.
We have demonstrated - and it's possible with SustainABILITY - the capacity to mobilize coordinated leadership between a variety of groups, getting many sectors of our society, locally and nationally, working together on a common cause. Our arm's length independence from both government and the private sector has allowed us to have speed and flexibility. It has allowed us to work with governments, the corporate sector and professional entities unencumbered by traditional political, professional or geographic limitations.
The main credibility of ParticipACTION I've identified in both official languages. The fact that the messages are perceived as credible and positive, the fact that we are lean, efficient and responsive, is the model we're proposing for SustainABILITY.
I'll conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying that all we have achieved in ParticipACTION, which I have just highlighted with some statistics, has been achieved with a total permanent national staff of ten individuals - eight professionals, two support. It shows what is really possible when we go the route of, if you wish, ``catalysation''.
I would now turn it back to Leone.
Ms Pippard: Mr. Lincoln.
.0915
Mr. Clifford Lincoln, MP (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): Mr. Chairman and colleagues of the House of Commons, if I've chosen to appear here as a witness today it is because I've been involved with this venture from many years back and I would like to bear witness to what has happened since.
I should start by saying that I used to be young. That was many, many, many years ago, but I still remember. When I first came to Canada I lived in British Columbia. Right around the corner from my house, less than a block away, there were, I think, two or three tennis courts. When I came I used to play a lot of tennis, and I couldn't find people to play tennis with. Every time I'd go to the court to play with my wife we would be the only people there.
In Africa I used to cycle a lot. When I came here nobody cycled. Only kids cycled, and they had strange bicycles with huge, fat tires. To us it looked very strange that nobody would cycle. Even if you were fifteen or sixteen you wouldn't cycle, because it wasn't done.
In just a few years, through ParticipACTION, the whole mentality has changed. There is not one corner of our country where you don't find a person, or many of them, jogging along the road. People are cycling by the thousands. On the island of Montreal, when they have the cycling day, the Tour de l'Île, 45,000 cyclists cycle away. People are playing tennis in every park in the land. There has been a whole revolution in the way we see our bodies, we see health, fitness, and nutrition, and I think it has been due to ParticipACTION. In fact, I'm convinced it is. In just a few short years it has changed mentalities in a way that has been so striking as to be almost unbelievable.
So when Leone Pippard came to see me...and I've known Leone for many years. Modesty won't allow her to tell you, but she became famous in the fight to save beluga whales. She won international awards for her research on beluga whales when she lived on Île aux Coudres in Quebec for a long time, observing the whales.
Leone came to see me once to tell me about this program she had, and that ParticipACTION was ready to work on it and manage it. Right away I became an enthusiast. I thought it was such a great idea, such a wonderful opportunity, and we would be able to do the same in the environment as has happened in health. It's much harder to do, because people are concerned about their bodies, their health, their nutrition, but the environment is less tangible. I thought if we could bring ParticipACTION to every home in Canada, we would change the way we think about the environment and we would bring so much action and pressure to bear on our governments to change. So I bought the whole idea right away, because I thought it was fantastic.
At the time, just before the last election, by coincidence I was involved with the sustainable development initiative of our party, chapter 4 of the red book, with the various people who were working on it. So I talked to them about it and introduced the concept. It was just a concept then, a project on a paper. I gave it to them and they thought it was fantastic too.
It went through the red book system. It was endorsed in the red book. You will find it there. A budget was applied to it in the red book. You will see it there.
At the time - and I think it's very important for members to notice this, because it was the cause of all the problems afterwards - there was no name for the project. The people who were coining the red book had to have a name, and they said, let's call it Action 21 for now. So this is how it appears in the red book, as Action 21, and there's a budget of $3 million a year for four years applied to it.
.0920
Afterwards, the first phase had to call for a total funding of $300,000 to move the concept into an action plan, a definite strategy. Various provincial governments and the McConnell foundation had each chipped in their share. It remained for the federal government to chip in its share, which was $100,000. At the time, there was some sort of confusion because a new government was taking office. The deputy minister at the time, Nick Mulder, who knew I had been involved in this thing, asked me if Action 21 was really SustainABILITY, because by then it had been named that. I confirmed to him that the two were the same, because some of the people in his department were saying they were not the same thing and so forth.
Eventually, a letter was sent by Nick Mulder confirming the participation of the ministry in this phase of $100,000 - their commitment in the overall $300,000. Unfortunately, Nick Mulder was transferred very soon after his letter was sent. So it sat there for quite awhile in the transition, and the new deputy minister wasn't sure, because, as you know, it takes a long time for these things to surface. He wanted to go into the root of this thing - was it Action 21, SustainABILITY, which was which? He was getting confusing signals from his own officials, and we had to go through the whole thing all over again.
Eventually, because it was getting nowhere, Russ Kisby, Leone Pippard and I had a meeting with the senior people in the ministry, including the deputy minister. Eventually, I guess we must have done a good job of convincing them because, in the final run, the ministry decided to chip in its $100,000.
I should explain, then, that a lot of months had gone by where nothing had been done while we were waiting for this money to come in. It had left a big malaise with the other people, like the McConnell foundation and the provincial governments, who felt the federal government was backing into this thing. When the action plan process eventually took hold, because of the delays and so forth, it naturally took several months to get it done. I think they had wanted us to produce it in three months, but I think Russ said that this was impossible and that we needed at least six months but it should be nine months. Eventually the department got very antsy that this thing was not happening fast enough for their purposes, because they had to have a communications plan.
I should explain to you that SustainABILITY was not in favour with the officials in the communications part of the ministry because they felt it was too big and that they wouldn't have any sort of hold on it as officials. They preferred different, other ways of pushing the sustainable development communication program, so they had a brilliant idea: they put in a plan and they called it Action 21.
So the eventuality was that the ministry's communications plan for sustainable development is now called Action 21, and it has all sorts of their various programs within it. So they said that with the red book, we now have a sustainable development plan and that we've put money in there, so that's what it is. As a result, SustainABILITY is still waiting for the federal government to get involved, because the money is now in Action 21.
.0925
This is really the long and short history of what's happening. As a result, the various stakeholders who wanted to join in on the premise that the federal government, which had started ParticipACTION in the first place, would be a stakeholder, are now very reluctant. They ask, hey, what's happening? After all, this process started with the round table, which is an institution of the federal government, and the federal government is not in. So we have all these various stakeholders sitting on the sidelines.
This is what led to the appearance before the committee when Mrs. Pippard asked to be heard here and so forth, hoping that without any rancour, without laying blame, without starting to call names or say that this person was right and this person was wrong, leaving all these things aside, maybe the committee would send a very strong signal that this is the greatest opportunity before us in a long time to change the minds of Canadians; that we are going to take it seriously and convince the federal government that despite the Action 21 that exists today, surely this is a small price to pay to have a program, which as Russ Kisby has said so eloquently, triples, quadruples, provides ten, fifteen, twenty times the tiny investment in it through volunteer work, through advertising for free a mass national campaign. It is received right through Canada, whether in French Canada, English Canada, Quebec, New Brunswick - it's liked everywhere. It's non-partisan and non-political. It changes minds.
I think it's a great shame. It's almost as if we were looking a gift horse in the mouth and saying, no, no, we don't like the shape of the teeth and we're going to throw it away.
[Translation]
I believe, and I particularly speak to my colleague from the Bloc who has followed those discussions with a lot of interest, that this is a major opportunity for us. Attitudes are changing about the environment and sustainable development. I hope we will get the support of all parties in the House. I am sorry that our friends from the Reform Party are not here, because I would like to ask their support for this initiative. It is an incredible opportunity for Canada. It is only about a one million dollar expense for the federal government
[English]
and that would be very small change for such a fantastic program.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. Your words are extremely helpful in understanding the evolution of this idea.
This committee, of course, has the power if it wishes to do so, and I would be glad to entertain a motion if one is moved to that effect, to reflect what you have just said. It is up to the members of the committee to initiate such a motion.
I understand that Ms Dale wants to make a brief comment before we open it up for questions. Or do you still prefer to do it at the end?
Ms Ann Dale (Senior Associate, Sustainable Development Research Institute): I'll do it now if I may.
Thank you very much for the privilege of speaking to you today on what I consider to be a very important project for promoting sustainable development in Canada.
Before I do that, however, I'd like to leave for the committee the first edition of the Sustainable Development series, a series we've initiated from our institute out west. This project is designed to push the work of Canadian researchers and policy analysts in sustainable development domestically and internationally, and it will now hopefully be published every two years. I'm pleased to leave that with the clerk.
The Chairman: Where is your institute?
Ms Dale: It is in Vancouver.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Chair, could Ms Dale read the title into the record, please.
Ms Dale: The title of the first edition is Achieving Sustainable Development, volume 1.
Despite overwhelming evidence since the beginning of the 1960s that human activities are seriously impacting on and changing the biosphere - global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion, overpopulation and overconsumption, as all of us are so very well aware in this room, and much more recently biodiversity loss - our systems have been relatively slow to respond to the sustainable development imperative. Given the increasing severity of these issues and the gridlock around immediate actions, we need a mechanism for the rapid diffusion of sustainable development practices and principles and concrete examples of how it is working.
.0930
In fact, the example of the national round table is interesting here. We were highly successful in promoting the ethos of round tables throughout Canadian society, but polls consistently show the general public has very little deep understanding about the meaning of sustainable development. Hence, we were very successful at promulgating the process - everybody is now having round tables - but not necessarily the substance.
During the first year of our operations, the national round table decided on a major educational focus through two programs. One was aimed at the formal education sector, K to 12, which has now evolved into the successful Learning for a Sustainable Future, an ongoing program. The second program was a broad-based communications strategy, aimed at educating the general Canadian public about the meaning of sustainable development and providing information on sustainable development principles and success stories.
It is my contention that we know enough to act now. We even know how to implement sustainable development practices and processes rapidly. In fact, at a recent seminar and discussion at the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver we discussed the fact that really a lot is happening out there in large industry and in selected communities across the country and that perhaps - these are David's own words - we have been immersed in doom-and-gloom scenarios for too long and we are missing the good-news stories.
Governments have a key role to play in promoting this rapid diffusion of sustainable development policies, practices, principles, and methods, because quite simply it demands leadership at the national level. Ironically, the increasing plurality of our country is also contributing to institutional gridlock, as the powerful vested interests effectively lobby both the political and bureaucratic levels of government to maintain the status quo and to resist change. Herein lies the paradox, since future competitiveness and innovation are linked to the very changes that are being resisted.
Government, particularly the federal government, has an important leadership role to play. This role can be most effectively exercised only by transcending the various vested interests that exist in this country, by providing two ways to inform and allow the Canadian electorate to exercise their democratic choices. The first mechanism would be through creating space for policy alternatives. The second would be by creating new narratives for social change, particularly around sustainable development.
I will address the second point only as it applies specifically to the issue we are talking about today, the necessity and desirability of developing a social change program for sustainable development in this country. But why government in particular, and particularly the federal government? Simply because it is in no one else's self-interest to create these new narratives for social change, for the reasons I have already described. This is the best role the federal government can play, and one I have debated with Michael Walker, who often debates with NGOs that government should get out of the playing field and it should just be the private sector and the NGOs working in the environment.
Government is the most effective institution to play the neutral third party and to lead, first by example in its own organization, through the mechanism of developmental sustainable development plans that now have to be tabled before the House in 1997, I believe, and second by developing programs that ensure new narratives for social change are widely articulated and debated across the country. These new narratives have to be cleverly designed, be impeccably correct in their analysis and the information they provide, and at the same time be sexy enough to communicate effectively to the diverse audiences that make up this country. Through the use of strategically placed media articles, town hall meetings, television and other electronic media, this simple and yet already developed program, SustainABILITY, can be a powerful tool for allowing Canadians to talk about and debate where their country should be in the 21st century.
The social change program developed by Leone Pippard and Russ Kisby on behalf of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, in collaboration with a representative multi-stakeholder group from across Canada, and with provincial buy-in and commitment, is an immediate mechanism the government could use to transcend the current decisional gridlock and begin the development of creating space for policy alternatives and narratives for social change. Otherwise we will continue to endure the politics of separation and divisiveness and our long-term well-being, competitiveness, and innovation in this country will not be realized without the political will and government leadership through such a program.
SustainABILITY, I believe, has the capability to impart the impetus to transcend the gridlock I spoke about earlier, by communicating and providing information directly to individual Canadians. In fact, it has proven this ability to transcend the cleavages that plague this country through the composition and consensus achieved by its technical advisory group, a diverse group of 45 Canadians, including people on the left and the right of the political spectrum, provincial representatives, academics - and getting a consensus among academics is a little like training cats, with no offence to cats - business reps, NGOs, indigenous labour and youth reps.
.0935
It is imperative that these messages be delivered by a neutral, arm's length body through such a program as SustainABILITY in order to retain neutrality and credibility. In other words, it must be, and must be seen to be, free from any vested interests. Thus, SustainABILITY, a program with consensus across the country and provincial buy-ins, offers an excellent mechanism to rapidly diffuse sustainable development policies, practices and principles to the Canadian public and to create the new narratives for social change to effectively implement sustainable development into all facets of Canadian society into the 21st century.
Thank you for the privilege of speaking to you today.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Dale, very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies.
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): First, I would like to thank Mr. Lincoln, who made me know more about the project now presented to the federal government.
I don't know the Action 21 project. Obviously, at first glance, the SustainABILITY project with a more substantial financial support will give the public a more positive image. At first, when Mr. Kisby talked in his presentation about ParticipACTION, I didn't see the link between SustainABILITY and ParticipACTION and I was wondering why he was talking about it. However, I have now understood that ParticipACTION, thanks to its operational structure, will make a big marketing move to get public attention.
I think that ParticipACTION has proved itself in the last 25 years. As Mr. Lincoln was saying, 30 years ago, we weren't that many riding our bicycles on the road. Today, more and more people enjoy it and we can hope that they will have a comprehensive vision of the environment as it is linked to their life. When people do ParticipACTION, it is for their holistic health and not only for the pleasure of riding a bike, swimming or playing tennis.
As critic for mines, I have a few questions about the SustainABILITY project. We know that mines have made a lot of efforts but they are still major polluters. How can we choose between a mining industry that is sustainable and that pollutes as little as possible, but that creates jobs, and a less polluting industry offering less jobs or non at all? Mrs. Pippard may want to answer.
[English]
Ms Pippard: I presume you're speaking to the conflicts between choices, of jobs versus the environment, cleaning up the environment, and so on. That is precisely what the program intends to address, to show Canadians that it isn't a trade-off any more of jobs versus the environment.
If you look at the fisheries crisis in this country, there was a time, perhaps, when people did not realize that the conservation of stocks was very important. The drive was to harvest the stocks, to harvest and harvest until we built up a greater and greater mechanism of factory fleets to harvest stocks. Then they crashed.
.0940
Well, I don't think anybody on the west coast or on the east coast today doesn't understand that their jobs are related to the preservation of the environment. And that goes for the mining industry, the petrochemical industry or any industry in this country. The future is in sustainable development, and any industry that doesn't understand that and doesn't produce products that in fact are as good for the environment and as good for human well-being as they are for the bottom line is going to miss out in the future.
However, in terms of these conflicts, it will not be the program that addresses what the right approach is. Canadians must address those conflicts, and that's why we're proposing the citizens forums. We need to put these issues out there for Canadians to come to grips with what I said: are there conflicting values and attitudes?
In all polls Canadians buy into sustainable development. Eighty-one percent of Canadians believe sustainable development should be a priority for Canada. But when the rubber hits the road, when you get into a community and you ask someone if he or she is going to live with a waste site in his or her community, he or she will say that a waste site requires a debate.
For example, right in New Brunswick, where I come from, do we want to take in waste from the United States and drop it in our province? Is that what we want to do to achieve sustainable development? There we have values and conflict. Canadians in those certain little towns see an opportunity to make money by dealing with American waste, but on the other hand if you ask people to work through their values on the issue, their values might come down on the side of sustainable development.
There are conflicts. The program will not hide from saying that there are conflicts, but it has to create mechanisms that allow Canadians themselves to resolve their conflicts.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I will make a brief comment. I think that on the whole, this presentation convinced me that an organization like yours, that has had a good start, or any other, has a right to exist and to go on. With the Buy-Green Initiative, we can convince people to pay a little bit more for a recycled product in order to create in the next 10, 15 or 20 years an attitude...
Of course, we can't ask the mining industry to be pollution free overnight because it doesn't always have the technology to do so. But if we keep on encouraging it to improve the situation, obviously, in 10 years, the industry will be less polluting. Already, it is now a lot less polluting than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
I will give my support to the project. Of course, you still have some moves to make, but I have explained your objectives to my colleagues from the Bloc in a short meeting and I hope that you will get the funds to go on with your work.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any comments?
Ms Pippard: Thank you very much. Obviously we can say thank you for your support.
The Chairman: Merci. Next, Mr. Adams, Madame Payne, and the chair. Monsieur Adams.
Mr. Adams: Je vous remercie, monsieur le président. I want to thank you all for coming here.
As you can imagine, those of us who have been on this committee for some time have discussed sustainable development and the implementation of sustainable development, which is what we're talking about, at enormous length, just enormous. One of the analogies that has been floating around is the analogy between the place of personal hygiene in the public health revolution of 100 to 150 years ago and what we're actually talking about in ParticipACTION today.
The idea is that at that time the science was developed first and people became aware that it was important to be clean and to keep cities clean and that kind of thing. Then technology developed and we had sewer systems and all sorts of ways of doing what was necessary to implement what had been learned about cleanliness and so on.
Then political will developed. And there was political will. Believe it or not, all sorts of leaders became convinced of this idea, but it only worked when people, as individuals, became so convinced about the truth of this new thing that in their most private and intimate moments - not in their public moments - they behaved...and we had the personal hygiene which affects every single one of us today.
.0945
By the way, there's a public aspect to public hygiene, because we all want to appear clean, but there's also a private aspect. So we don't sneakily behave in unhygienic ways in private.
What I really like about the ParticipACTION thing here, Mr. Chair, is that ParticipACTION's enormous success - it's not quite as successful as personal hygiene has been yet - is convincing people in private moments. Even our clerk, for example, in his private moments functions in a very healthful way, and I suspect at least partly because of ParticipACTION.
The Chairman: What do you mean by ``even our clerk''?
Mr. Adams: It's just a manner of speaking, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lincoln is another. There are a few people around here who were affected by -
The Chairman: Even Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Adams: That's right.
So I'd like to ask Russ...and I'll pose the two things at once. First of all, as you said, in the first three or four years of ParticipACTION there was money and you needed it, for example, in some of your community projects. The first one was in Saskatoon, and a fair amount of money went into Saskatoon. When you got to Peterborough you didn't have any money left. We got it organized as well as we could. I want to ask you about that, because that was a different era, a different time. I don't believe even the small moneys you used to kick it off are available.
The second thing you quoted yourself. Your enormous success was tapping this free media coverage, which you still have. In those days it was enormous. In Peterborough again, in my own community, it was from cable TV, community TV, all the way through. Then your national advertisements would come in almost free. Is there room for you to continue that and for the sustainable development media coverage you would seek?
Mr. Kisby: Thank you. I'll address the first question first, if I may.
I would have to agree with you, Mr. Adams, on your recollection of public health and its success. You're absolutely right.
About the experience with ParticipACTION, I have to make one correction. Saskatoon, which Mr. Adams referred to, was chosen early on in our program to be a pilot program. In other words, would all these wonderful strategies really work? I went to Saskatoon, invited through the mayor and some community leaders. Would they be prepared to become a model community? Not one penny of federal money, other than the money that was going towards my time - and I never stayed in Saskatoon; I was in and out as a catalyst, if you wish - went into that community. It was agreed that if Saskatoon was going to make it work for its benefit, the resources had to be found within that community.
The reason we insisted on that - and we've seen it in other programs - was that if we put a lot of federal or indeed any government money into a model program, then the assumption is you're going to have to duplicate that in every community across Canada. So the funding principle was that if this makes sense, we have to catalyse. We have to get the community itself to come up with the resources.
The same model, as Mr. Adams indicated, was subsequently used in Peterborough, where the community expressed interest. We shared our experiences but no money was brought into that community.
Mr. Adams: I apologize for that mistake, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kisby: I'm actually really pleased you addressed it, because it's a very fundamental principle here. This is not ``government buying goodwill''. It's government modestly investing to stimulate, to empower communities, to empower groups to come up with their own resources and strategies.
The second question is, given what ParticipACTION has and continues to do, I understand, is there room within for sustainability? What I want to emphasize is that we do not see sustainability as being ``another ParticipACTION program''. We believe ParticipACTION and its experiences would be one of a number of partners that could contribute towards this program.
.0950
So our success in terms of how you access mass media, how you appeal to the corporate sector, and perhaps most important, how you motivate the involvement of literally tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians - we can share those strategies. They need to be adapted. But we believe we can be part of the bigger picture.
To conclude, using your example of health, whether we're talking about physical activity or health and well-being in a broader sense, it is intricately related to the environment and society in which we exist. There is no point in encouraging people to jog if the pollution levels out there are going to be detrimental to their health. There's no point encouraging people to bicycle if it's actually dangerous because special paths or roadways have not been prepared.
So we see the environment, the whole notion of sustainability, as being a much bigger picture in which ParticipACTION can contribute.
Ms Dale: I would just add something to that. When we were planning the location of the national round table, we tried to figure out the most effective way to effect change in the shortest period of time, given the severity of the issues. We felt that if we had to go the scientific and technical route, particularly when it comes to biodiversity conservation, we were going to be doomed, because it's taken about a 25-year window to get consensus around the issue.
We looked at the anti-smoking campaign. If you look at the change in public attitudes and values around smoking in 20 years, it's been dramatic. We tried to figure out mechanisms and ways to get people's self-interest involved by linking health - that is, well-being - directly to sustainable development. We felt somehow or other we could get those changes in a decade.
For all sorts of reasons - mainly, at that time health statistics weren't linked to environmental statistics - we couldn't do that. That's another reason why we turned to this kind of program.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly support the idea that the committee endorse the program, as Mr. Lincoln has suggested.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams. Madame Payne.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to welcome you before us this morning. It's the first chance I've had to meet any of you.
I particularly thank Mr. Lincoln for his comments. Being a neophyte here, I've learned a lot of things from what he said today. In fact, I didn't realize that ParticipACTION and SustainABILITY had some linkage.
I suppose coming from the part of the world that I do, Newfoundland, I feel rather frustrated. Madame Pippard mentioned the problems we've had with the east coast fishery. But I think my frustration stems largely from the fact that we knew a long time ago what had to do done in that area. We were in a head-on battle between government and the large corporations that were wanting to go out there and get the fish. This is apart altogether from the overfishing that took place on the part of foreign countries.
How do you address that? How do you strike the balance between, as has already been brought up, the economy, the need for jobs, and the need to protect our environment? I know the side you're on, and I know what you're going to be saying. But coming from my point of view, how do we really balance those?
It's very difficult for me as a member from the east coast to go out into my constituency and say, I'm sorry, we can't have those jobs in the mines because it will destroy our environment, when they ask me how they will put bread on their table tomorrow morning. So I think we have to walk a very fine line. I'm not sure it's one governments have learned to grapple with. Neither has the large corporate sector dealt with it at this point.
I'm interested in the comments Ms Dale just made in terms of linking environment damage to health issues.
Ms Dale: There's an interesting phenomenon happening in this country where we have a de-linking of money from production. So you now have a market in money itself. We also have a de-linking of employment from profits. The more profits a corporation makes, quite often - and I won't mention the particular sector; I'm sure we're all aware of it - they employ fewer and fewer people.
At the time we were making some of the decisions we were about the factory freezer trawlers, allowing them to come in, if we had linked what we mean by sustainability - is it more sustainable to employ 100 small hook-and-line fisherpeople than one factory freezer trawler? - I wonder if that would have been able to transcend that sort of political inaction at that time.
.0955
Mrs. Payne: This is precisely the point I'm trying to make. The people who were involved in the industry at that time were saying exactly that thing. But how do we get that point across?
They were saying this to governments, but then we had the large corporations saying no, no, we have to make a living by doing this. They said they would employ more people, which in reality was not the case. What you've said is exactly the situation.
Ms Pippard: I would like to answer in the sense of again going back to this idea of citizens forums. It's the community itself that needs to determine what kind of economy it wants. It has to sit down among members of the community, active citizens, to look at the various options for the community.
Let's say that in Newfoundland the communities had been engaged in a process of citizens forums 10 years ago with respect to the kind of fishery they want as a people. After all, doesn't an economy serve society? So if the society itself could have had the opportunity to determine the kind of fishery it wanted rather than being told by corporations or whomever what kind it should have, then surely that should be the economy that would evolve. It's the one supported by the people.
The reason we allude so much to the citizens forum process is because it is proving to be a very successful process in the United States. This is where the idea was recommended to us. It came out of the United States. It's engaging Americans as citizens. Again, this is in a country where, frankly, a lot of Americans don't believe in their political system, period. We certainly believe in it more in Canada, but we lack real bona fide mechanisms in this country to allow citizens to state what is fundamentally important to them and to work the problem through for themselves.
The same would apply to the mining issue. They would have to decide among themselves what values were going to be uppermost in terms of how they want their economy in that area. There may be other choices and other creative approaches that would come out.
Mrs. Payne: I agree with what you're saying. I only wish that this had happened before we found ourselves where we did.
This is happening in many more places besides Labrador. We're now looking at the development of a rather large mine. At this point, we don't see any environmental problems. That's not to say they won't happen, because this mine that's being developed goes all the way from the point where the ore was first discovered right out - that's what it looks like - to the sea. Now what will happen after that....
So I think the kinds of forums you're talking about are not talking place. My question again, I suppose, is how do we make government and corporations see this? How do the two manage to get together and decide that the environment takes precedence?
Ms Pippard: Well, let's just be hypothetical and pretend that we do have citizens forums operating across the country right now. Let's say the issue was energy options in Canada and which way Canada should go in terms of energy. Let's say that Canadians coming out of those forums do make bona fide choices of the options they favour. Well, doesn't that speak to politicians? Doesn't that speak to industry that this is where Canadians wish to go? It helps government govern, because it shows where Canadians can come down on the issue.
It's not an easy process to do, and it may take some repeated efforts, but the thing is, as I say, that mechanism is missing. I guess if I were a politician I would be asking myself how I could decide on some of these issues. I hear everyone, but how can I decide? Surely it's the public itself that must decide and let you, the policy person, the government representative, know how they come down.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you.
Mr. Lincoln: May I make a comment, Mr. Chairman? You know, when I was listening to you, I was thinking about last night, when I had dinner with one of my aboriginal friends about an environmental project we work on.
He made a point to me about what's happening in northern Ontario with the old growth forests we're starting to cut. There's a dichotomy within a lot of the community. There are those in the environmental community and the native community who say you shouldn't touch the trees. Then the government is saying no, no, we've got the trees, so we have to cut them and sell the wood. So what is the choice?
.1000
He said to me that in all these things, it amazes him how there is no interconnection between what has happened and what we are deciding today. He was talking about the floods in the Lac Saint-Jean area of Quebec, where it was clearly demonstrated that a lot of it has happened because we have diverted these rivers. There have been sketches now. We have dammed the rivers so much everywhere that nature is now finding its own course. It will always do that.
He said that he immediately thought of northern Ontario. I asked whether they didn't see what has happened in Quebec, where you're fiddling around with nature in a way in which you are interfering with the natural process. He said that the two come almost automatically as a linkage. He was amazed that the people who make the decisions never connect one with the other.
In other words, we have had the fishery on the east coast and the fishery on the west coast, which are threatened. You would have thought we learned, but we're not learning; we're still overfishing there.
Certainly there is this dichotomy between the Americans and the Canadians. Then we've had the big argument over Clayoquot Sound in B.C. We had to make compromises.
But Ontario doesn't listen; we're still doing the same thing. It seems to me that the awareness of the public is going to change that in a massive way.
In other words, if 500,000 Newfoundlanders, the people at the grassroots, really know the choices and are sensitized as to why the choices should be one way or another, I think the governments would act differently.
I think we have to change attitudes massively. I don't see a government today pushing something that is against the health of Canadians or saying tomorrow that everybody should smoke more or something. It would get defeated because nobody would accept it.
Take the environment. If we start making people aware of these linkages, what the history has been, why we should change practices, and that it's more profitable to be sustainable, then I think we are going to get a big change in mentality and in the decision-makers.
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, those are all the comments I had.
But I would also, with your permission, put forward a motion that we speak, or at least write a letter, to the minister asking him to support the program for ParticipACTION in principle and with financing.
The Chairman: Can you circulate in handwritten form so that both Mr. Deshaies and Mr. Adams can see it?
Mr. Deshaies,
[Translation]
do you want to make a comment about the name ViABILITÉ?
Mr. Deshaies: I would like to point out to the group that the French name ViABILITÉ may be in sync with the objective, but that for most people, it is not as obvious as ParticipACTION, which is very easy to understand. ViABILITÉ has a positive part. The first part of the name ViABILITÉ is "via" or "vie" and then, we have «abilité à vivre».
[English]
We can transfer it to ``ability for life''.
[Translation]
Maybe you should keep and sell gradually this name. With time, people may understand it. If not, you should try to find a more catchy name, which will get people's attention more easily.
[English]
Ms Pippard: The names SustainABILITY and ViABILITÉ are not necessarily the names of the program as it rolls out. We have to find a name and test it with a focus group to make sure it is going to work in both languages.
The Chairman: Mr. Deshaies, while the motion is being prepared, we can accept it but not vote upon it because of lack of quorum. Therefore, we will have to wait for the next meeting when we will have six members present, but at least we can entertain it and put it forward at our next meeting.
.1005
Let me just make the comment that what emerges here is a message that relates very much to health actually, considering the ultimate results of an activity of this nature. It is still a ParticipACTION under a different name in a way, but that's how it came through and the techniques, the modus operandi, by way of learning stories, citizens forums, and leading people to action, are the same techniques as those you have already put into practice in the past.
Maybe a partial explanation as to why things have not gelled so far is that we all suffer under a blue box syndrome and once we have done our blue box number every week we feel that as members of a community this is all we are willing to do for sustainability. Maybe the behavioural change that has been achieved through the blue box is remarkable, but it's in only a few provinces. It's certainly not across the country. It may be that the blue box lesson could be helpful to us in moving into the next phase, which is the one you are proposing.
It seems to me that what you are asking for, really, is an amount of money to prime the pump, and nothing more than that. Is that a correct interpretation?
Ms Pippard: Yes, it is, to catalyse the leverage so ParticipACTION can take the money and prime the pump with the private and non-profit sectors.
Mr. Lincoln: If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, I think the federal involvement is key because of the financial nature of it, of course, but also because of the symbolic nature of that participation, because if the federal government is not in, the other buyers say that there must be something suspicious about it.
The Chairman: Was the $324,000 in your presentation, which was contributed to program development, inadequate as a sum, or was it provided at a time when you were not ready to make full use of it in priming the pump? How is that expenditure going to be interpreted?
Ms Pippard: I'm not sure I fully understand the question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Was the amount of $324,000 insufficient to prime the pump?
Mr. Kisby: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That sum of money, the $324,000, was the funding we determined was needed for the development phase, to do the consultations, to build the strategy to get to this point.
The Chairman: That amount was received.
Mr. Kisby: That amount was received.
The Chairman: So what is your lesson from that?
Mr. Kisby: Our lesson is that once we finally received it we were able to fulfil its objective, which was to develop the detailed strategy based on extensive consultation.
The Chairman: That was applied to the strategy. What is needed to prime the pump?
Mr. Lincoln: I should explain that this money, the $324,000, was the start-up to produce a development plan. That was all agreed amongst the various participants. It was just the preliminary phase, you might say.
What was provided for in the red book by the federal government, according to how it had evaluated ParticipACTION before and how much it had to put in, was $3 million a year for four years. Now you can forget that, for obvious reasons: we're at the end of the mandate. So I think the expectations are far less and the other partners are prepared to chip in now.
Maybe Russ or Leone could tell us how much is needed from the federal government today.
.1010
Ms Pippard: Mr. Chairman, we have an overhead that shows how the commitment to $3 million a year, if it were made, would leverage the private sector. I think we should put it up. If not, Mr. Kisby can explain it to you. We have it right here; we can just give it to you.
Mr. Kisby: Basically, Mr. Chairman, there are two big sections: the requested public sector funding, which we propose would be some combination of the federal government and the provinces, and the private sector funding. As Mr. Lincoln has indicated, we believe the public sector is absolutely essential if we are going to appeal to the private sector and other sources.
With the ideal model of roughly $3 million per year from the public sector, we propose and believe it's feasible that this will be matched in the first year by the private sector. But by year five, the private sector is putting in substantially more. At the bottom you can see the projected conservative estimate of the free media exposure - in other words, if one had to buy that time and space, what it would cost. You can see that over the five years the public funding - combined federal and provincial - while not insignificant, is relatively modest compared with what the private sector will provide, both in dollars and in media.
The Chairman: If we were to tax lotteries and gambling we would have a revenue of $900 million, as estimated by the Department of Finance, which could come in handy in situations like this.
Ms Payne has prepared a motion that the clerk will read.
The Clerk of the Committee: It is proposed to move that the committee send a letter to the Minister of the Environment outlining the importance of the SustainABILITY project and requesting the government's support of the program, including financial assistance.
I think the rest is a preamble, which should not be part of the motion as such. The motion should be for the letter and financial assistance.
.1015
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments on the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: Maybe we should read it in French.
The Clerk of the Committee: Il est proposé que le comité remette une lettre au ministre de l'Environnement soulignant l'importance du Programme ViABILITÉ et que le comité demande au gouvernement d'appuyer ce programme par une aide financière.
This is more or less the French version of the motion.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I would just like to point out that the tax collected by the government on advertising companies would be more than the funds that it would give. If private industry gave 12 million dollars, there would be some profits, in taxes, over what the government would give out.
[English]
The Chairman: This motion can only be received. We cannot act on it today when we do not have a quorum, but we will do it at our next meeting.
Before we break up, let me ask you this question. If it were possible, if this committee were to make a decision to the effect that a meeting would be arranged for you to make a presentation in a committee room with a television facility, to which the committee would invite the media and the potentially interested government officials and parliamentary colleagues in both Houses, would that meet your expectations? Would you be inclined to do it?
Ms Pippard: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Kisby has said, if it will help our cause to make this program happen, we'd be more than glad to do it.
The Chairman: It will require another discussion on the part of the members of this committee, and the clerk will have to explore it. It certainly wouldn't happen tomorrow. It will take some time before it can be organized, if it is organized. But in principle it is something you would be willing to do. It would be your show as guests of the committee.
Ms Pippard: It would be much appreciated, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We thank you all, Mr. Kisby, Ms Pippard, Mr. Munroe, Ms Dale and in particular, as Mrs. Payne has already done, Mr. Lincoln for his very helpful intervention. We wish you a good day.
This meeting stands adjourned.