ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 29, 2001

• 0909

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

We have a quorum, and the clerk informs me that the transport committee has reserved this room as of ten o'clock. Apparently, other committees are desperately trying to pass legislation. Perhaps we could devote the time we have available to Washington and to Bill C-19, for a brief update on both.

• 0910

The purpose of the visit to Washington is to make contact with our American colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and more precisely, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; and to discuss two, and possibly three issues on which our opinions may may converge with theirs, unlike with those of the Bush administration.

One issue is climate change. I'm told the chair of the American committee, Senator James Jeffords, is of the opinion that the Americans should re-enter the Kyoto family, so to say. The second one is transboundary pollution, which is a topic of continuing interest on both sides of the border. Third, the drilling in the Arctic Slope has been mentioned or threatened at times by the current administration. The purpose of the meeting would be to find common ground, and it might possibly lead to a common declaration by parliamentarians that should be helpful to the administrations on both sides of the border.

The arrangements made so far are for a bilateral meeting, but it is a strong possibility that this could become a trilateral meeting if the Europeans, whom I've contacted in recent weeks, both in Brussels and in Strasbourg—respectively, the European Union Parliament and the Council of Europe—decide to send a delegation. If they do, then our cause will of course be considerably strengthened by the presence of the Europeans, because of the population mass they offer and their keen interest on both items, namely climate change and transboundary pollution.

Arrangements are being made for a three-hour meeting with the senator and his committee, and then for a meeting with the House Science Committee. That was offered by the Americans, and it seems to be very worthwhile. Third is a meeting with Environmental Protection Agency officials. This is the three-pronged program that is shaping up.

Yesterday, in a long conversation with Timothy Hodges, who is in charge of environment and fisheries issues at the Canadian embassy in Washington, he very kindly offered his assistance. I asked whether or not he would be able and willing to also arrange a meeting with key American NGOs on this occasion. That is therefore a very strong possibility for the program, which starts on a Monday morning, as you know, and will end on Wednesday at noon, when we will be departing for Canada.

Our effectiveness there depends very much upon our ability to grasp issues from the American perspective, in addition to our ability to know the Canadian perspective. It would be most desirable if you could, in your spare time, bring yourself up to speed on some North American environmental issues. An excellent book edited by a gentleman named Paul G. Harris, entitled The Environment, International Relations, and U.S. Foreign Policy, is a recent one that gives an overview of major issues.

• 0915

There are also other sources of very good information. For instance, the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation, located in Montreal and called the CEC, has just produced a report entitled Estimating Future Air Pollution from New Electric Power Generation. It has also produced a working paper on the environmental challenges and opportunities of the evolving North American electricity market. That report was published in October. It has another background paper entitled NAFTA Provisions and the Electricity Sector. It's a new report, and there are others. I am reading from a printout from the website, under the heading North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation, which you will recall is a creature of NAFTA in the environmental field, and which is seated in Canada, in Montreal.

The Americans will surely appreciate the fact that we go there not only with our own views, but also with an understanding of their perspectives. It must also be said—as we all know, actually—that in many respects, American environmental legislation and regulation is some of the best, and we can learn certain things from them, as they can learn some things from us. But we should go down equipped with a knowledge of what they have achieved so far, particularly in the pollution prevention field, and also in climate change.

The November 9 issue of Science Magazine contains a two-page article—I've given it to some of you, but not all of you, so I apologize—on climate change and the economics of climate change. It's produced by a guy at Harvard, I believe, an economist, and it is another piece that is worthwhile examining for the discussion.

Last but not least, our researchers are busily preparing quite a background paper for us, so as to give us some additional knowledge.

I will stop my monologue on this topic, because I'm sure there are questions or comments in relation to this trip. In conclusion, though, I would urge you to indicate to the clerk your intention to go, because he has to make plans. He has sent out a notice, and he would love to hear from you so that we can form a strong delegation. This is a first in a long time—or perhaps it is a first, period—in terms of this kind of environmental encounter.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): Could you repeat the dates again, sir?

The Chair: We'll be going for January 28, 29, and 30. We're leaving on Sunday, in order to be there in time for meetings on Monday morning. The first meeting will probably be the meeting with the Senate committee, and that will last three hours if we have enough to say.

The floor is open.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, building on what you've already said about some lessons we can learn from the Americans, particularly in the area of pollution prevention, they have been leading the world on the issue of child environmental health, and they have been building certain precautions into their legislation and into their management of certain toxic chemicals, particularly on the issue of pesticides. Some very good work has been done by their scientists on these sorts of of things. I'm wondering if that topic could be explored as well.

• 0920

The Chair: We are making a note of that.

Mr. Comartin and Mr. Mills.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I would like more information on two points in order to prepare in advance, and I'm looking for assistance from both you and the committee, Mr. Chair.

A battle over enforcement has been raging in the U.S., particularly in the midwest. It has particular implications for Ontario, and particularly my area of Ontario. This battle has been between five or six states and the EPA, which the states are challenging in court. The issue went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The EPA won, but now it has been suggested that the administration will not enforce the ruling. I quite frankly haven't followed what has happened in the last two months. Given what happened on September 11, perhaps nothing has happened, but it's of particular import to southwestern Ontario in terms of the amount of pollutants moving across the border. I'm looking for some sources of information on this, so if anybody on the committee is aware of it, I'd appreciate some help. Perhaps I can get some from the researchers.

The Chair: We will perhaps have to rely on the researchers to do some digging on that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Secondly, I'm aware of a study that's about to come out, dealing with the issue of transboundary pollution—again, pollution coming our way. I'm sure we're going to hear from them about the pollutants moving in their direction, and rightfully so. I see our minister finally took a firm position on a couple of the plants in Ontario this week, and that has long been needed. This study, which I believe will have been published in an American journal by that time, will show the health impacts of their pollutants on our side of the border.

I believe one of the things coming out of the study, Mr. Chair, is that, because of the data available through our health care system, we're able to do better research than the Americans. They just can't access the kind of health data that we can access. At least, the demographers in the U.S. can't. I think that may be a point on which we may want to have some discussion with them, particularly with the EPA officials.

Thank you.

The Chair: On the first item, we will have to rely on the researchers to bring us up to date. On the second one, I made a note of it, and I thank you.

We now have Mr. Mills, Mr. Tonks, Mr. Herron, and Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): On the transboundary issue, you know I have been involved in the B.C.-Washington State situation. Of course, that also has implications for Oregon and California as well. As you know, I appeared during hearings in the U.S., and I would like to find out what sorts of federal regulations and controls they have, and so on. As I see it, the Governor of Washington is going to make the decision, and that will be final even though it crosses state boundaries. Obviously, if it crossed provincial boundaries here, the federal government would be involved. I might be wrong, but it appears that this is not the case in the U.S., so I'd like to zero in on that aspect of it. That's regarding the Sumas and the other eleven power plants being built on the border. The airflow is into Canada, and they're also using our aquifer.

The Chair: The power picture in Washington is a very diffuse one, and it's an extremely difficult one to pinpoint for specific issues in particular. On this issue, you may want to identify either the senators or the congressmen in question. On the second day of the visit, perhaps you might make a detour and visit them on a personal basis. I doubt very much that you will be able to identify, from here or through the committee of the U.S. Senate, the right people who could be of assistance to you. I suspect you have to undertake your own explorations.

• 0925

Mr. Bob Mills: It partly relates to what Mr. Comartin is saying, too, about the transboundary pollution issue.

The Chair: But I think the meeting with the EPA officials will be the one at which these issues can be raised and the power structure can be better identified. This will be on day two.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in the whole area of environmental protection in California, there are rather terribly stringent targets. I would be interested in some key case specimens in the area of technology. My colleague Julian Reed has been dealing with that issue from the alternative technology perspective with respect to buses, transit, automobiles, fuel, and so on. Perhaps there could be one or two or three key things—following the point just made by Mr. Mills—with respect to power-plant sources of emissions.

I think the case study was cited by you or by Mr. Reed with respect to—and this may be anathema to some people—the whole notion of coal generation. Is it clean coal? I'm not sure where that kind of new technology comes up, or whether it's a serious strategy in the United States...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...form part of a continental policy. But various case studies are related to serious approaches to meeting the EPA reduction strategy...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...interested in trying to scope that particular issue out. If it's not relevant to this conference, just say so, but I'm interested in that whole area in terms of finding common ground between their strategies and ours with respect any Kyoto targets.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Before Mr. Reed arrived, it was mentioned that arrangements are being made to meet with the science committee of Congress, if not on the first day, then on the second day. That will provide us with an opportunity to explore the latest technology on the use of coal and the like. As for case studies, I will put that question forward to the EPA people to see whether or not they can include them in our meeting.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm following two issues very closely in my critic role with the Progressive Conservatives. The first issue is very connected to what Mr. Mills and Mr. Comartin were advocating, and I'd refer to an editorial produced by Janine Ferretti, from the Centre for Environmental Co-operation.

When the Cheney energy plan was established, it was made very clear that the Americans are going to build a whack of power plants to fulfill U.S. energy needs. That's going to take place anyway. We can't do anything in a Canadian context to prevent those plants from being built, yet there is an immense opportunity—and a one-time opportunity only—for us as a nation. It's not whether or not these plants are built. What's more important is where they're built.

The issue that I'd like to be able to pursue in a more global fashion, beyond just the Sumas issue Mr. Mills has referred to—and I'm on board with his efforts and the efforts the PC/DR have made on it as well—is the need to start engaging the Americans on the siting of their energy plants. It was the same kind of issue that you participated in, in terms of getting early engagement on acid rain, when you were involved in the formation of the 35% club, with the Europeans and the Canadians working on reducing SO² emissions. That brought the Americans in, and eventually we built a coalition with Vermont, upstate New York, New Hampshire, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that we need to start having some early engagement about the siting of these plants in regard to the airflows in terms of where we are upstream. Eastern Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes are in one airshed, and the same things exists in the Washington-Oregon corridor as well.

• 0930

A specific aspect that I'd like to ask the Americans about is how they plan on using the recent treaty signed at Espoo. When transboundary pollutants are airborne, a mechanism already exists under Espoo to potentially have a third-party intervener actually intervening in this regard, but when you get into these kind of disputes under this treaty, it's too late. I think we need to start talking about or sending some early signals that we're concerned about the siting of power plants. That's my first point.

The second point is that we knew, as a point of fact, that if we were ever going to hit our climate change targets, we would need some form of tradable permit regime within a North American context. The Americans are not going to be in Kyoto. We need a tradable permit regime. The Americans have said clearly that they're going to have an alternative American plan for their climate change needs. I think we should start sending some early signals that we're interested in proposing an alternative American plan with respect to tradable permits, a plan that will help to reduce greenhouse gases and start bringing the Americans into the process, even though they may not come into Kyoto.

Those are the two points I'd like to pursue, sir.

The Chair: Thank you. Those are two classic examples of an intervention you could make in Washington. Perhaps you may want to leave behind a paper; it doesn't have to be a long one.

Mr. John Herron: We could just fax the transcript of my remarks.

The Chair: These are the kinds of interventions that will be more than welcome there, I'm sure. Perhaps by fleshing it out with some more precise—

Mr. John Herron: We would leave on Sunday, January 30, is that true?

The Chair: January 27, yes.

Mr. John Herron: We would leave on January 27?

The Chair: The Sunday, yes.

Mr. John Herron: We have caucus that week.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague Mr. Herron referred to a caucus. This will allow me to check if I also have a caucus. Which brings me to the following question. Was the trip approved by the Board of Internal Economy?

The Chair: We have asked for approval.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: All right.

The Chair: We haven't received it yet.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will do my best then, and if there is no caucus I will be there. I believe this trip is very important, for the climate change issues alone.

I think we have to pull out all the stops to ensure that the Americans come back to the table. In my opinion, we cannot carry on like this, with one country deciding to be outside of the international consensus. I think we will have to be very clear on this, perhaps bring up a certain number of Canadian positions, try to find alternatives, work with the Americans to try to find some way to bring them back, because in the end, we have never really known what would allow us to ensure that the Americans come back to the negotiating table. Therefore, I believe we need to explore these avenues.

On the other hand, there is another issue that I feel is important, that is the whole issue of importing domestic waste and American municipal waste to Quebec territory. It seems that sections 175 to 182 of the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, allow the minister to grant import permits for domestic and municipal waste. This could mean that certain areas of Quebec, for example the Estrie, could in fact become dumps for our American neighbours. We should perhaps assess the Americans' intentions concerning waste exports in order to be able to assess the impact on our territory.

• 0935

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras makes two very important points. However, I don't think we can put the second one—the one on trade of waste—on the agenda. In itself, it is a huge item. You may make an intervention on it when your turn comes, of course, but I would not recommend it at that stage, because we already have enough to keep us going.

On the first one, you make an extremely important point, because it deals with the whole question of bringing the Americans back within the family on the Kyoto agreement. Here, it's important to remember that there is quite a split between the position of the administration and the position of the Democrats in particular in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We have to see them as our allies, except the administration is now in the process of perhaps rediscovering internationalism—as it has done with the UN—and maybe we can express the hope that it will also do that with Kyoto and other agreements. We have to somehow develop a manoeuvre whereby we include them rather than confront them. This is an important point that I hope you will make when you speak there, because this is a fantastic occasion for developing very strong, positive links with our American colleagues.

Mr. Reed and Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): The one intervention that I would like to bring to Washington is this whole question of environmental subsidy that is really inhibiting the development of alternatives to conventional energy. Robert Kennedy, Jr., has really coined the phrase initially. He made it very clear that conventional energy is subsidized, and it's subsidized with environmental degradation.

The Chair: That was already said in the Brundtland report, ten years before him.

Mr. Julian Reed: Right, but he has certainly carried that on.

I also know Stanford University has done some work in an attempt to monetize that subsidy, to put a dollar figure on it, but I haven't seen any universal embracing of that reality in the United States. Certainly, there is no embracing of it here in Canada, but it seems to me that if we got our act together, shoulder to shoulder on this, it could create a whole new atmosphere on energy development.

The Chair: So what would be your suggestion?

Mr. Julian Reed: My suggestion would be to bring the issue to the table and to ask our American counterparts to give it the same consideration.

The Chair: Anything that has to do with energy is so closely linked to climate change that it is perfectly fine. It would be up to you to make that intervention, and possibly also to leave behind a paper. Don't underestimate the importance of leaving something behind for them as a document, whatever it is. You have plenty of time to prepare it. Our hearings—for instance, the one on Wednesday at noon—provide a considerable amount of background—and we all want to thank you, even if we have been a bit remiss in attendance.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

• 0940

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It would be helpful if it were possible to have some brief notes around science spending in the United States, particularly on independent, public-interest science research and that sort of thing, in terms of what their government is providing, as well as some of the key areas and priorities. If it's possible, perhaps we can see what was done under the Clinton administration and what is being done in this administration, because I think we'll see some changes happening. That's important for any dialogue we have with the science committee. As I've often said, this is where one can look to see some of the systemic barriers that exist within government and that have implications for decision-making if good, public-interest, independent science isn't being done.

The other question I would have, Mr. Chair, is whether or not it's possible to get information on when the Species at Risk Act is going to be introduced. If it's in the House of Commons at report stage during the week when the environment committee is in Washington, I'm going to have to stay behind, but I'd hate to miss out on this opportunity to make some inroads with our colleagues in the United States, particularly on some very important issues like Kyoto.

The Chair: I'm glad you're making the point about science. We should think very thoroughly about that meeting with the science committee, because a number of interesting issues could be raised, as you already mentioned. I would encourage you to provide the researchers with suggestions.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, we'll talk.

The Chair: As for C-5, I've spoken to Mr. Boudria, and I will do it also in writing. There will be no movement on that while we are in Washington, so I wouldn't want people to lose sleep with that horrifying thought in mind.

Mr. Bailey, Mr. Savoy, and Madame Redman.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You got me back home in a hurry when you started talking about transboundary pollution. I have within my constituency Saskatchewan's only two coal-fired plants, and they're both within six miles of the U.S. border, with the prevailing wind to the northwest, so I've heard about this for years and years. I've gone through and flown over them, and I think they've done a great deal to stop much of that pollution.

I want to introduce a topic not necessarily for the U.S., but something that is a big concern of mine. I think it's universal. In Europe, they don't bury garbage. I'm getting as much information as I can, but they have unique burning situations in which it is burned and the fuel is used for other purposes. Here in particular, we have a program whereby we're not allowed to burn, but we bury. We then leave the disintegration and everything else, to eventually damage the aquifer. I'm looking for some scientific guidance on this. Should we burn? Should we bury? It's a very difficult topic, so I would appreciate any help I can get on this. It's a personal thing, but getting rid of this stuff has become a multibillion dollar business. I'm not sure we're going the right way, so I think it's a good topic for this committee.

The Chair: For this committee?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'm not talking about the trip, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: In the meantime, though, you may want to approach the Library of Parliament, because it is very likely that certain studies have already been conducted on this particular subject.

Mr. Savoy, and then Madame Redman.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): I have a couple of very brief comments. First, we're looking at interventions in Washington. Will an intervention be made on alternative energy sources—I assume Mr. Reed would be the logical choice to make such an intervention—not just for the existing plants, for power generation, but for potentially future plants? In a lot of the presentations I've seen made by Mr. Reed, there's certainly some viability in a lot of the technologies based on alternative energies. I think we should be aggressive in our stance that these should be looked at by the U.S., as their plans now will contribute heavily to our loading, with the prevailing winds coming from the west.

Secondly, when we are finished looking at the larger macro-scale of this whole process, will we be preparing a brief for our counterparts, both in the U.S. and here, with regard to initiatives on transboundary, or will it be up to individuals to do so? I know you mentioned leaving documents behind after you've made your intervention, if possible, but would it not make sense for us to come up with a plan, as a committee, to address initiatives that could help on transboundary both at home and in the U.S.?

• 0945

The Chair: The background paper will cover transboundary pollution in a manner that will bring us up to date on what is being done in Canada and what is being proposed in the U.S., and also on the recent developments with Illinois and New York complaining to Ottawa about the behaviour of Ontario. Some political issues require close attention, but the paper will probably bring you up to speed.

On alternative energy, certainly this is an item that.... First of all, you will be stunned by what goes on in the U.S. on alternative energy. We don't need to be aggressive with them. If anything, they are much more aggressive than we are. But you may want to prepare yourselves. You can request an update on alternative energy in Canada and the U.S. this afternoon by writing a letter to Hugh Finsten, the head of the research branch, and you will get the study done between now and the time of departure. That is one way of equipping yourselves with a specific subject of interest.

Madame Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): I realize time is quickly moving forward, so I want to actually talk about a few logistics, not specifically in terms of the trip to Washington, but in terms of the work plan for this committee. I would be interested in hearing what the two sessions next week will entail, and what the scope of the discussions will be. My understanding is that we have invited staff from the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency to come in. Is it going to be a technical briefing, or is it going to be on how the actors handle...?

The Chair: I'd be glad to go into that in a second, as soon as we finish this round.

The last intervention is from Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was just going to raise the issue of time and the need to get into Bill C-19.

The Chair: What?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There's a necessity to discuss the issues around Bill C-19.

The Chair: Yes, Bill C-19.

All right, do I take it that we have had an adequate discussion on Washington? It would be nice if the entire committee could travel, because this is a unique occasion.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, for clarification, the House is sitting, so are we not going to have any environment meetings that week?

The Chair: Not that week, no. We can't do that. We would be back Wednesday night, so we could sit perhaps Thursday morning at best.

This is a unique opportunity to establish and do some good groundwork.

On Bill C-19, some members have made representations to me about the importance of being brought up to speed on a topic that is new to all of us for a variety of reasons, and to do things in a manner that is properly planned. I've had conversations with the agency, and I would like to hear your comments about the following approach. First of all, we would organize meetings with the agency to deal with a chronology of environmental assessment in Canada since 1984, when the first decision was made in this respect. That would allow for an understanding of the evolution of that particular discipline in Canada. Secondly, we would have a discussion or a briefing on the existing legislation. Third would be a briefing on Bill C-19. This would roughly encompass some three meetings.

My suggestion to you would be that we do that in the next two weeks—two meetings next week, and one in the last week—so as to bring everybody up to speed and to provide a background, some foundation on which to then base the discussion on Bill C-19. Also, in the following weeks, in the month of January, it will give people a chance to absorb the material that has been presented, and a chance to develop some thoughts on how to approach the bill.

• 0950

When we come back from Washington, we can tackle the list of witnesses. I invite you to indicate to the clerk what witnesses you have in mind, so that we can have an exercise of witnesses that is sufficient and comprehensive.

When that comes to an end, the minister has indicated his wish to appear, and then we will go into clause-by-clause. I don't know when that will be completed. It depends on whether or not amendments emerge and, if so, how many amendments emerge on the bill. As you know, the bill is not one of the most revolutionary approaches to environmental assessment. It therefore doesn't offer much scope. Nevertheless, there may be room for some improvement.

I open the floor for discussion, beginning with Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was just wondering when the committee would be making decisions on the witness list, as a committee group.

The Chair: That would be whenever we meet right after returning from Washington. Actually, it would be desirable if you could let the clerk have the names of potential witnesses. He can then start preparing the ground in January. I don't think we need a specific meeting to approve a witness list, because the list is not that immense. It would be probably be anywhere between fifteen and twenty names.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Would we be having a discussion around the criteria for the submission of the witness list? Perhaps we could have that at the beginning of a session next week, even if it's a half-hour discussion on the criteria for the witness list.

The Chair: We can have a discussion on the criteria for witnesses any time. We can have it at the beginning of the first meeting next week.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That would be fine.

The Chair: We actually already have a list here, and I have already received some letters on this. For instance, the University of Waterloo has sent one, as have others. So I think the criteria are already emerging from the names of the people asking to be heard.

Madame Redman and Mr. Tonks.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a very commendable suggestion that we review the list. I'm wondering if the format of round tables, which we used for the Species at Risk Act, might be a productive way to use the expertise and interest of a variety of people. That way, if we have fifteen or twenty people, it doesn't mean fifteen or twenty meetings.

The Chair: You may want to suggest a topic for the round tables, perhaps at the next meeting, so that we know what to have in mind. But, sure, we can do that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: My only other observation would be that, in the past, I know we've felt the need to give witnesses ample time to get here. It would therefore be preferable if these discussions could happen in advance of January and the Washington trip, so that witnesses can be given enough lead time.

The Chair: Once we approve the criteria, whatever they may be—I don't think it will take too much to arrive at them—the approval of the criteria will then lead to the finalization of the list and the invitation by the clerk. The witnesses will then be rolling from that moment on.

Mr. Tonks, Mr. Bailey, and Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Alan Tonks: [Technical Difficulty—Editor]...this, but in the preliminary lead-up to requests for amending the present Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, some emerging issues must have predated the actual review. Would it not be an idea to review that and to link the discussion with the desire to change the act?

The Chair: When the agency briefs the committee on the existing legislation, it will be forced to indicate what the shortcomings were that lead to the preparation and writing of Bill C-19. That will be part of the briefing.

• 0955

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes, with the view to looking at those kinds of organizations that would be most difficult...[Technical Difficulty—Editor].

The Chair: A well-known field of organizations is active on environmental assessment. Everybody knows everybody else, usually.

Mr. Bailey, Madame Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Herron.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Just off the top, I was unaware that we had discussed in this committee the number of people who would in fact be travelling to Ottawa. When the paper came across—

The Chair: To Ottawa or to Washington?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Sorry, to Washington.

When the paper came across to my desk, I had my assistant fill it in, saying that I would be going. The reply came back that the Canadian Alliance would be allowed just the one. I didn't know that, but that's all right, because I know what my January is going to be tied up with now and I've committed myself.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, you may want to talk to your whip. Apparently that was the indication that came from your whip's office. It was not from us.

Mr. Roy Bailey: All right. Thank you, sir.

Anyway, it doesn't matter now, because I've committed myself to help with a big issue in the west.

The Chair: Take it up with your whip.

Madame Kraft Sloan, Mr. Herron, and then we'll conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think round tables would probably be a good idea for dealing with controversial issues. My concern, Mr. Chair, is that this is a highly technical piece of legislation that requires witnesses to have the opportunity to have enough time to adequately explain their position and the problems they have with the legislation, if indeed they have problems with it. I would therefore be concerned about limiting witnesses to fifteen on a round table or something like that. I think we need to ensure that witnesses have adequate time to participate and to put their positions forward.

Also, in terms of one of the things Mr. Tonks raised about controversial issues, I think the review itself is a controversial issue. Because it was an in-house review, one might question how accessible the review was and how open it was. A session on the review itself would be very helpful to members in order for us to understand where the amendments are coming from. A debate on that is very important as well, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Keep in mind that the terms of reference for this committee are to examine Bill C-19, not to review the review. If we go into that, we are in for several months of work, so I would alert you to the fact that if we go down that route, we will not come home until the summer.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm not suggesting several months, Mr. Chair, but I think it's important so that members of the committee can decide whether or not recommendations are credible in light of the review itself, and whether or not the review itself is credible, because indeed that's the source of those amendments.

The Chair: I don't know whether we want to reopen the issue of the review or not. Otherwise, we'll open up the whole exercise that has already taken place. We have Bill C-19 before us. If you want to use C-19 for discussion and question why certain items are in C-19 and why certain items are not, that's fine. I think that would be perfectly legitimate.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine, but I just wanted to bring to the committee's attention the fact that the review itself was controversial.

The Chair: Yes, we are aware of that.

Mr. Herron, to conclude, please.

Mr. John Herron: To pick up a little bit on where Mr. Tonks came from, by identifying shortfalls, you may recall that the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development almost assailed the Canadian environmental assessment process in terms of how many assessments were done just by mere screenings that didn't even meet the criteria of the act. Bringing in the Commissioner of the Environment for a technical briefing perspective in advance, in order to be able to highlight the lack of rigour in the environmental process by the government, would be quite helpful.

The Chair: Yes, that's a very thoughtful suggestion. We'll inquire with Johanne Gélinas on whether or not she wishes to appear on that topic, but we'll leave it to her to decide. We'll certainly take it up with her, though. The clerk will take care of that.

It's now 10:03 a.m., and we must relinquish the room. I thank you very much for your input, suggestions, and advice.

The meeting is adjourned.