ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

¹

1530

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. William Kennedy (Executive Director, Commission for Environmental Cooperation)

¹

1535

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

¹

1550

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. William Kennedy

¹

1555

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

º

1600

Mr. William Kennedy

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Charles Hubbard

º

1610

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Victor Shantora (Head, Pollutants and Health Division, Commission for Environmental Cooperation)

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. William Kennedy

º

1615

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Victor Shantora

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

º

1620

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Julian Reed

º

1625

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bernard Bigras

º

1630

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Victor Shantora

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. Victor Shantora

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bob Mills

º

1645

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. William Kennedy

º

1655

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

»

1700

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. William Kennedy

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

»

1705

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

»

1710

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mr. William Kennedy

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. William Kennedy

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. William Kennedy

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. William Kennedy

Hon. Diane Marleau

The Chair

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

»

1715

Mr. William Kennedy

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 018

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Today we are going to have a good exchange with representatives of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. As you may recall, it was established at the time of the NAFTA agreement as a parallel initiative in order to deal with environmental matters in North America. We are very fortunate to have two distinguished civil servants with us, Mr. Kennedy, the executive director, and Mr. Shantora, the head of the pollutants and health division of the commission and formerly a distinguished scientist with Environment Canada, if I remember correctly.

    Welcome, gentlemen. You have the floor, and then of course after your presentations we'll have a good round of questions. The floor is yours.

    Mr. William Kennedy (Executive Director, Commission for Environmental Cooperation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I'm happy to meet with you today for the first time, as the new Executive Director of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. I know that you have a particular interest in the work of the commission, and I am happy to present to you the recent activities of our organization, and to give you an overview of its future activities.

[English]

    Perhaps, before I begin the presentation, I'll just say a few words of introduction about myself. I have been in the position of executive director now for six months.

    As you are aware, the position of executive director at the CEC is one of rotation. The first executive director was a Mexican national, Mr. Victor Lichtinger, who later became the minister of the environment in Mexico. The second, my immediate predecessor, was a Canadian, Ms. Janine Ferretti. Of course, in the interim between her departure and my coming on, my colleague Victor Shantora was acting director, and he has now returned to the position of head of our pollutants and health program.

    The third executive director from the U.S., I am an American citizen. I am a native of Colorado. I went to school and grew up in Colorado, but I should say that to a certain extent I'm not a typical American, in that most of my life has been spent in Europe. Indeed, the last twenty-odd years, before returning to North America, I was in Europe, for the last 11 years as director of environment policy at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the EBRD, in London. Unlike my predecessors', my background is not primarily in the government sector or the environmental sector but the private sector, in finance and business.

    But I'm very happy to be in this new position and very happy to be in Canada. Perhaps I could tell the committee that in the years I lived in London I was often told by British colleagues I spoke English awfully well and that I could pass for a Canadian. Since I've been in Montreal, I haven't heard that, but I feel I pass very well in your country and I enjoy very much living and working in Canada.

    I would like to begin by giving you a quick overview of the CEC, which I suspect, probably for most of the members, will be old information since of course you've heard from the CEC before. But perhaps you'll allow me just to briefly say a few words about the CEC for those for whom this might be new.

    First of all, as you know, within North America, a continent with 400 million people, we have a shared ecosystem, and although we have political boundaries, air, water, and species don't necessarily respect these boundaries but cross them quite fluidly. A main part of the CEC's work is to address the issues associated with this shared ecosystem.

    NAFTA, which as you know came into existence 10 years ago, has brought about a doubling of trade among our three countries, currently amounting to approximately $11 trillion worth of goods and services, making NAFTA the largest trading bloc in the world.

    Turning to the CEC itself, I'll note that we were created in 1994. As you may be aware, NAFTA was pretty much negotiated and ready to be signed when there was a change of government in the United States. A number of particularly environmental organizations were concerned about the possible environmental effects of NAFTA as well as about labour issues; they were concerned that, in the form it had been negotiated in 1994, environmental issues had not been given adequate attention. Rather than renegotiate the NAFTA agreement, the three parties agreed on a side agreement, a parallel agreement to NAFTA, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, which created the CEC.

    The CEC's structure is a unique one. There is no other international environmental organization or secretariat associated with a trade agreement or any other agreement that resembles the CEC.

    There are basically three poles to the CEC, and the first is the council. The CEC council is made up of the three environment ministers--or more correctly, I should say, the environment ministers of Canada and Mexico and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States. The council meets once a year in June. Our next council meeting will be next month in Puebla, Mexico, but between these annual meetings the council is represented by what we call the “alt reps”. These are their alternate representatives, in essence, the heads of the international offices of the three ministries. The alt reps meet three or four times between council meetings, and the council approves the program of work of the secretariat.

¹  (1535)  

    The secretariat, which I'm now privileged to head, is located, as you know, in Montreal. We have a staff of approximately 60 professional and support staff, evenly divided among Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. nationals. We also have a small technical office in Mexico City.

    The third element, which here is unique to the CEC, is the JPAC, the Joint Public Advisory Committee, made up of 15 citizens, five from each of the three countries, A distinguishing factor here is that the five members from Canada and Mexico are appointed by the ministers of the environment while the five U.S. members are appointed by the President of the United States.

    The CEC's mission is a broad one. It is basically to further cooperation and public participation and to foster conservation, protection, and enhancement of the environment in the context of increasing economic and trade links.

    I was quite surprised when I first learned of the CEC, because my understanding, given its birth as a side agreement to NAFTA, was that the CEC was only about environment and trade issues. But of course, as you know, its agenda is much broader than that. In addition to activities related strictly to environment, economy, and trade, there is a much larger cooperative program in the area of environment among the three countries.

    We basically have four goals governing our work, which I will not read for you; you can see them from the screen. They emphasize the various roles we play in terms of promoting an understanding of the state of our environment. We produce a state of the environment report and annual reports. We act as a catalyst for improving the enforcement of environmental law and policy through our article 14-15 process, the citizen submission process you're familiar with. We mobilize cooperation on critical issues through independent research and provide a forum for public dialogue and participation through the JPAC and in other ways.

    Taking a look at what we've been involved in, some of our accomplishments in 10 years, we see we have four program areas: biodiversity, environment and trade, law and policy, and pollutants and health. As I said, these are the main areas of cooperation among the three countries.

    But we also undertake focused analyses quite apart from--or they could be apart from--these areas under article 13 of the side agreement. Article 13 is my favourite article in the agreement because it allows the executive director to decide upon carrying out and to undertake a study on any issue related to environment in North America involving the three countries and to commission that work. We've done a number of article 13 reports--five, to be exact. The most recent, which will be released to the public, we hope, within the next few weeks, is done on transgenic maize and the effects of transgenic maize in Mexico.

    As you know, we also have the citizen submission work related to articles 14 and 15, and I'll go into a little more detail about that in the next slide.

    Moving on from there, I'll say a few words about some recent activities I have been involved in as well since joining the CEC. One is the engagement of the provinces. I learned on joining the CEC that in the case of Canada, not only the federal government but three Canadian provinces had signed the side agreement; they are Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. I've not yet had a chance to visit Manitoba, but I did have conversations in Alberta and Quebec to ask why they signed this agreement and what they were getting from the CEC. Indeed, that was a question they put right back to me, that although they had signed, there had not been a lot of cooperation between the secretariat and the provinces.

    But we are taking steps to address that, and I just learned that at our next council meeting in Mexico in June, not only will there be the three countries' environment ministers, but Minister Mulcair, the environment minister from Quebec, will also be in attendance. Alberta has also signalled an interest in working more closely with us in environmental capacity-building efforts with the States and Mexico.

¹  (1540)  

    Engagement of the private sector is another area where I personally am interested in promoting greater cooperation, coming as I do from a private sector bank. It seems to me that in the past the CEC, while it has been very cooperative with the governments and with the environmental community, has been less so with the private sector. I think this is an area where we need to strengthen partnerships and will probably be recommended to do so by the 10-year review report, which you're aware of and which I will mention in a moment.

    In another recent activity of work we have done on air quality and children's health, several months ago we published a report related to air quality in the border town of Ciudad Juaréz, showing a link between the air quality situation caused by increased truck traffic on the border and the effects on children's health, even children's mortality.

    Another area of recent activity is on alien invasive species. We were beginning a program of work, as part of our work on biodiversity, to look at the effects of alien species coming into North America and into each of the countries' waters as a result of increased trade and what effect that would have on our environmental ecosystems and health.

    As I mentioned, we are also just concluding work on an article 13 report on maize. We've listed the objectives of this report.

    You may know that since NAFTA, the amount of imports of corn into Mexico has tripled, and much of this increase in importation of corn to Mexico has been the transgenic variety. Prompted by requests from the environmental community, we've undertaken this report to look at what the likely effects of these current and future uses of transgenic maize in Mexico could be. There was a draft report presented at a special meeting in Oaxaca several months ago, and we expect that the final report will be presented within the next two or three weeks.

    Turning quickly to the article 14-15 process, as you're probably aware, these articles outline a process in which any citizen in the three countries who suspects that one of the three countries is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law--and I should point out that this is not just related to trade issues, but any environmental law related to domestic activities--can submit a request to the CEC asking that we undertake an investigation and specifically prepare what's called a factual record on the case.

    Since we've come into existence, there have been 43 submissions, 14 of these involving Canada, and nine factual records have been prepared to date. So a number of these submissions were not actually carried out, for one reason or another.

    There are two factual records involving Canada that are pending at the present time. One has to do with the pulp and paper industry, and specifically the alleged failure of the enforcement of the Canadian Fisheries Act and federal pulp and paper effluent regulation regarding specific mills in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes; and there's a second factual record pending related to Ontario logging and the alleged failure of the enforcement of migratory bird regulations against logging operations in Ontario.

    Let me conclude with two slides, one on future directions for the CEC, and another on potential future priorities. As I mentioned at the beginning, the parties, in line with the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA and the CEC, have commissioned a special 10-year review of the CEC. This review is being carried out by a team of independent experts, two from each country. The two Canadian members are Pierre-Marc Johnson and Mr. Bob Page. Indeed, Mr. Johnson was elected chairman of the six-member committee. They took up their work last autumn and have just recently submitted a draft report to the governments and the secretariat. Their final report, with their specific recommendations, will be presented to the ministers at their meeting in Puebla, Mexico, at the end of June.

¹  (1545)  

    Given the work of this 10-year review committee to date, and based on their draft report, it leads me to list here a number of what appear to be future priorities on the CEC agenda, based on this 10-year review.

    The first is that I think it's fairly clear that this report will call for the CEC to focus more specifically on a limited number of projects and activities. The work program of the CEC has expanded greatly over the last 10 years, and there will undoubtedly be a call for us to prioritize our work.

    The second is most probably to act more as a catalyst for action and to provide policy advice, rather than concentrating on actual projects on the ground, implementing things on the ground.

    Third, there will most likely be an emphasis on a need to enhance capacity building in environmental management generally, and particularly in Mexico.

    The last is to increase partnerships. As I mentioned, I have a strong suspicion that the committee will recommend to the governments that we work more closely with the private sector and probably with indigenous peoples as well.

    It is my understanding that the governments will react to the recommendation in the 10-year report in some kind of declaration--which will probably be called the “Puebla Declaration”, as the council will be meeting in Puebla--pointing out their initial response to those recommendations and how we should be going forward to the next 10 years of the CEC....

    With that, I will stop, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation.

    The Chair: Thank you for a very comprehensive overview, Mr. Kennedy.

    I'm sure colleagues will want to start asking questions. We'll begin with Mr. Mills, with the usual five minutes, suivi par monsieur Gagnon, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Szabo, so far.

    Mr. Mills.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome to our guests. Say hello to Bob Page for me; I've known him for many years.

    My question really relates to the way your agency functions when it comes to a specific problem, and a lot of people here will be tired of hearing about Sumas Energy 2. That refers to the Fraser Valley and a power plant, one of 13 to be built in Washington State right on the border, using water from an aquifer that is in Canada, putting basically the pollutants into the Fraser Valley airshed and putting the power lines overtop the city of Abbottsford because they're not allowed to go overhead in the state of Washington....

    I met with the governor, I met with the environment minister here in Canada, and I met with a number of other congressmen down there. There were 13 of these plants proposed. It went to public hearing. I was allowed to be an intervener in the U.S. on behalf of Canadians, and I was given full opportunity to present the environmental case. The problem was, I had great difficulty appearing in Canada as an intervener, first, I was told, because I didn't live there. Then I was told that basically the lawyers from the company in the U.S. refused to have me appear. I couldn't quite figure that out.

    Anyway, I said, my basic argument is that there are international agreements that when something crosses the border--and we're talking about air, we're talking about water and, in this case, power--in fact, these agencies should be involved. I've asked the IJC why they were not involved, and they told me that they had to be requested by both federal governments in order to be involved, and they had received no request. I asked about the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and I was told that this applied to Ontario and Quebec but did not apply to western Canada. I did write a letter to CEC a couple of years ago now, and again nothing happened, basically.

    So I made the argument on behalf of these international agreements. We won the first round as the NEB hearings turned down the proposal in the U.S., as far as it related to Canada. The company has now appealed that, and that appeal is now before the courts. The point is, I wonder how.

    There were as many as 8,000 people at the rallies that were held out there. There were city councils, the provincial government. Many people in the U.S., in the whole Sumas area in the U.S., were upset about it. Whatcom County in the U.S. did petitions. Yet nobody, from an international standpoint, took a look at this or got involved at all.

    Now, obviously there are about 12 more to come, plus there's this appeal. How do we activate your group to deal with a specific problem like this, no matter where it occurs on our border?

    Mr. William Kennedy: First of all, let me start by saying that I'm not personally familiar with the Sumas Energy 2 issue. I apologize for what must be an unsatisfactory IJC response, but indeed, like the IJC, I don't believe we have been requested by our three governments--obviously, Mexico would not request us to, but either the United States or Canada--to look into this matter.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Sorry, could I just interrupt briefly?

    In San Diego, the same sort of situation exists. The Mexican and the U.S. governments, I believe, did request something; they did get a study done. But it appears we couldn't get one in Canada.

    Again, how do we do it? What steps didn't we take that we should have?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Well, it seems to me that if there is a trigger here, if you're asking about what the legislation or the agreement would be that would facilitate your situation, it would basically be environmental impact assessment legislation.

    I learned on joining the CEC--and you may be aware of this--that part of the agreement establishing CEC instructed the three parties—I believe it was in a short time period of three to four years—to come up with an agreement on environmental impact assessment among the three. That is to say, in situations like this when a project is being proposed in one jurisdiction that would affect the other two, there would be a way to allow neighbouring countries to participate in the decisions, and the environmental impacts of transboundary effects would also be considered.

    Now, I learned that although there's this instruction in the side agreement, the negotiations on this trilateral environmental impact assessment agreement broke down several years ago. So basically that is at a stalemate. It's also my understanding that because transboundary environmental impact issues are basically bilateral ones, even if the CEC did conclude a kind of trilateral agreement on environmental impact assessment, the scope of its activity might be limited, because it would be, again, looking at effects of all three countries. So my understanding is that the discussions are going on now on a bilateral basis--between Canada and the U.S., and the U.S. and Mexico--on arrangements for assessing these transboundary effects involving affected parties on both sides of the border.

    In terms of what you can do to have CEC address this, one way I suppose would be if this instruction in the side agreement to develop an environmental assessment agreement were resuscitated and we were instructed to take this up again. That's one way.

    Another is through the 14-15 process, and you mentioned Mexico-U.S. Several years ago we had a submission under 14-15 regarding a facility in Tijuana, the Metales y Derivados project, and it was requested because Mexico had not enforced its environmental laws in this case and there were issues related to toxic substances, soil contamination, etc. As a result of that factual submission, which we did, the U.S. and Mexican governments are now addressing cleanup measures. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just recently announced a grant to undertake a cleanup. So that kind of thing was prompted by the citizen submission process.

    Basically, I think in terms of the CEC those would be the two handles in which we could look at some of this.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: Part of this is that when we studied the U.S. case, it seemed that it affected U.S. citizens, and therefore there was action, and the Mexican government was forced to come on side and do something. However, these are Canadian citizens that were being affected, and we felt absolutely stonewalled from any help from any government, in any place, that would enact this.

    The Fraser Valley is the second most heavily polluted airshed in Canada--it's a loop with mountains on all sides. And now we're going to dump this five million tonnes of pollutants into the air every day. If we have 13 of those plants, you can imagine the residents of that area and the potential health risks and so on.

    We just could not engage the two governments, although as I say, I felt very much at home in the U.S. testifying. They listened as long as I was prepared to talk about it--and that can be a long time, Joe. But in Canada it was not.... The ones who were most afraid of the testimony were the lawyers for the company. They didn't want to talk about this international stuff at all.

    Obviously we should get that going, and I appreciate your comments.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gagnon, do you have any questions? No? Thank you.

[English]

    Mr. Comartin, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, actually I was seriously considering not coming today when I saw what was on the agenda, but I thought I would come and make some comments. Maybe Mr. Kennedy will want to respond.

    Mr. Kennedy, I'm from the Windsor area, right across from Detroit. We have the most polluted air in the country, at least for a community of our size. The truck traffic that has been generated as a result of the trade agreements has significantly contributed to that.

    The concern I had as I watched and fought--quite frankly--the trade deals over the years was the resulting environmental issues and what we see with the CEC, in terms of it being set up as a paper tiger, leaving the communities in the three countries to believe that some benefit will come from the commission being established. In fact, history over the 10 years has shown just the opposite. Whether it was political interference...when you had recommendations from your own staff to conduct studies, and they weren't followed through. I think there were six or eight recommended, and only two were pursued, with some of your senior and mid-level staff quitting as a result.

    When I look at the study you did in Juaréz, which has a similar pattern of truck traffic to what I have in the Windsor-Detroit corridor, I see that our kids are literally being examined and used in effect as guinea pigs as we assess them. But there have been absolutely no recommendations coming from the commission over the years. I haven't seen that the commission has done anything of any significant consequence to better the environment and to deal specifically with the very negative fallout we've had from the increased trade traffic between the three countries.

    That being said, what can you say to me that would lead me to believe that the next 10 years are going to be any better than what the previous 10 years have been?

º  (1600)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: First of all, I personally am very optimistic about this 10-year review report.

    Maybe I should preface this by saying you may be aware that a four-year review was carried out and recommendations made, which as far as I could see didn't have much effect. This current group is aware of that. I'm very optimistic and encouraged by the depth of the analysis they've done and the number and types of people they've talked to. They're going to come out with a hard-hitting report and basically say to the governments and the ministers that it is time to take this mandate seriously or forget it. I'm encouraged by that.

    I'm here; I'm new; I come with a different perspective. As I mentioned, particularly in the private sector, I'm very much committed to working more closely with a very important partner. It's industry and the private sector that are the engine in trade, not governments and environmental NGOs. I think we need to work more closely with them.

    The term “toothless tiger” is used. I think a central problem in the past with the CEC—and hopefully we can get this straightened out—is that it's a strange organization. I've never seen anything like it. In some sense, the secretariat is like any international secretariat created by governments to implement a particular work program. I don't think anyone would ever refer to OECD's environment directorate or the UNEP secretariat as being a toothless tiger, because they're not supposed to be tigers. Their goal is to implement a plan of work that the government set out. What's strange about CEC secretariat is that we have that function, but at the same time under articles 13, 14, and 15 there is an independent role for the secretariat--a kind of quasi-adjudicative function that a normal secretariat doesn't have. I don't think in the past there's been, either on the secretariat side or on the council side, a real understanding of these two functions and about keeping them separate. There's been a bit of a blur there.

    I think a second problem area has been that although, as you know, the CEC was created through the side agreement to NAFTA, and obviously environment and trade should be a central focus, and that's why article 10(6) of the side agreement instructs the ministers of the environment and the ministers of trade to meet frequently to discuss environment and trade issues, they've not met once in ten years. There were meetings at a working group level, but the actual ministers have not met.

    Seeing things like that lends support to cynics who would say the only real purpose of the side agreement and the CEC was to ensure the passage of NAFTA ten years ago, because if this hadn't been negotiated and this created, NAFTA would not have passed the U.S. Congress. But since it did, we have CEC. Those who would take that argument would point to the fact that environment and trade ministers have not come together since then, despite the instruction. I think, however, we can make a very good case for on-the-ground, positive action. For example, CEC has been instrumental in ensuring the eradication of DDT in Mexico. It's clear from whatever viewpoint you take that this would not be the case today without CEC.

    I think “toothless tiger” would be the wrong monicker for us, but perhaps “tiger” itself is the wrong monicker. We are a unique organization that is both an implementer and a catalyst for environmental policy for the three countries while having this independent watchdog role, and I'm hoping this will be clarified in this 10-year review and in the response by the governments, and that we can move forward more aggressively because of this clarity.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin. We'll come back to you in the second round.

    Next is Mr. Hubbard, followed by Mr. Szabo, Mr. Reed, and the chair. Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Probably a lot of us noticed the creation of your organization with NAFTA, but maybe we haven't watched the projects you've looked at as closely as we might have done and should have done.

    Mr. Mills talks about a particular concern he and some of his people have. How do the projects you investigate and write reports on originate? Can a citizen in Red Deer, Alberta, make a complaint that you would look at, or would it have to go through the Canadian government and their representation in your organization in order to be assessed and reported upon?

    I have a series of little questions, Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you could outline the path that could be followed if there were concerns. Does it have to go through one of the three governments to be brought to your table for investigation and report?

    Mr. William Kennedy: There is a specific process that involves the three governments, the council...but not through them. And if I could perhaps describe it very briefly, any citizen in any country can make a submission to us, and we look at that and then decide if we should take this forward to the council, saying that it's a legitimate submission and asking them to make a recommendation that we go forward or not.

    If two-thirds of the council, that is, two of the three members, say we should not proceed, we would not. This has never happened at that level, so each time the secretariat has gone forward and said, we have this submission and we think we should undertake an investigation, we then do it.

    At the end of the investigation we prepare what's called a factual record, that is, our report on the investigation. Before this is made public, it goes back to the council with the request to have it published. Again, if two-thirds of the council--two of the three countries--are opposed to that, then it is not published. That has happened once.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Furthermore, in your original submission you indicated that the provinces of Quebec and Alberta were getting involved. I have a little bit of trouble with that because it could be Colorado or any one of your 50 states, or it could be one of our 10 provinces, or many of the states in Mexico. How do you perceive provinces?

    We talk about the Kyoto accord, which we're working on here in Canada. The Americans are not into that to the same extent as we are. How do we get the provinces coming to the table, and under what aspect of it? How do they get the ability or the right to suddenly become part of your organization? And maybe I heard wrong, but I thought you said that Quebec and maybe Alberta were coming as types of participants?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes, as I understand it, when the side agreement was negotiated and when it was agreed upon, the Mexican, United States, and Canadian governments signed the agreement, and in the case of Canada--and I would have to look into the details of this--the possibility for provincial governments to also sign the agreement was offered and three provinces agreed to do that.

    So in terms of signatories to this agreement, there are Mexico, Canada, U.S., and the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. There are no U.S. states or Mexican states that have signed the agreement.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: That's good for information.

    With your timely reports, I was quite impressed with the work you've done and the reports you've done on all these different issues, I suppose by date, and it certainly is good to know that somebody is covering all that off.

    In terms of worker safety and the environment, do you get many complaints in that area, and have they been processed? We hear of certain members of our.... Worker safety has not been a factor in terms of how the environment--the conditions under which they're working and the products they're using--is affecting their health or the health of the immediate populations in that community. Do you have many complaints in that area?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: No, we haven't, and I think probably one reason is that there were two concerns, as I understand it, before NAFTA was adopted by the three governments. One was environmental and the other was labour standards, labour issues generally. To address the environmental questions, there was the side agreement and the CEC was created. There was a separate agreement negotiated on labour issues, which deals with worker rights, syndication, these kinds of things.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: But do I hear correctly, then, in terms of workers working under adverse environmental conditions, that this has never been a factor in any of your studies in the last 10 years?

    The other final point, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make--

    The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, it may be that this type of complaint would be addressed to the labour commission in Washington, wouldn't it? Would you mind confirming?

    Mr. William Kennedy: I believe that to be the case. We can check and get back to you.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: The final little question I have is this. We have the circumpolar nations and they have great complaints about pollutants--and I see you did some work here on ozone--that go up into the upper atmosphere, up into those countries' northern hemispheres above 60 degrees, and really come down to affect the plant life, and even animal life and human life, in those areas. Has that ever been a factor? I don't think Mexico is big in terms of clearing land, but some of the South American countries are, and you hear complaints when the circumpolar commission meets and the people of that commission say they're receiving the contamination from what they call their southern neighbours. Has that ever been...? I see Mr. Shantora is saying yes.

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes, I think Vic can answer this.

    Mr. Victor Shantora (Head, Pollutants and Health Division, Commission for Environmental Cooperation): Thank you.

    One of our initiatives is called the sound management of chemicals initiative. It's one of the early programs of the commission. It was specifically targeted on persistent toxic substances or the persistent organic pollutants that have now come in under the Stockholm Convention.

    If you're referring to that and the toxic substances that head up to the Arctic, we have had regional action plans to deal with DDT and PCBs. Mercury is still underway. Chlordane is another pesticide. We're looking to develop a regional action plan on lindane, another pesticide that's of concern to the Arctic.

    The three countries, then, work together to get their act together in terms of either limiting the use of these substances or eliminating them entirely. DDT was one such example.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Of course, two CEC countries are members of that commission too, Canada and the United States.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo, Mr. Reed, Monsieur Bigras, and the chair.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Kennedy, what is the annual budget of the CEC?

    Mr. William Kennedy: I'm glad you asked that question. Actually, the budget has not changed in 10 years. Each of the three countries contributes $3 million U.S., either in U.S. dollars or the equivalent in its own currency. That's our budget. That has not changed in the 10 years. Even though the governments have added work and expanded our work program, the budget has not changed.

    Let me say that I understand that, in a sense, this was not too much of a problem until very recently, because our income, if you will, was primarily in U.S. dollars but most of our expenses in Canadian dollars, particularly in the case of the secretariat, located as we are in Montreal. That changed dramatically last year.

    Indeed, one of my first obligations as the new executive director, which none of my predecessors dealt with, was how to identify approximately $3.5 million Canadian in cuts to this year's budget, which came about because of the strength of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

    The International Joint Commission has appeared before us on a number of occasions, and we have talked about some overlap issues, it would appear. Is there, in your view, an overlap in the activities of CEC and the IJC?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Let me ask Vic to start, because he's worked with the IJC much more closely than I have. Then I can come back with my own more recent view.

    Mr. Victor Shantora: This issue has come up from time to time. In fact, about a year ago or a year and a half ago, we negotiated what we called a letter of intent with the International Joint Commission to define some of the areas they're working in, some of the areas we're working in, and then mutual areas of work: issues like air quality, we agreed to cooperate on; toxic substances areas, we agreed to cooperate on; invasive species...and there was just one more area, but it escapes me. We've set up at the working level the professional staff who work with each other to make sure we don't duplicate or overlap.

    We have an excellent work initiative right now under children's health where we're working not only with the International Joint Commission but with the Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization to develop indicators of children's health.

    Again, our objective is to avoid some of the duplication and overlap that some people will accuse us of, and to work together to get the job done.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: About a year ago the IJC was before us, at least to some extent, on the matter of alien invasive species. There was some very startling economic impact information related to the Great Lakes, even to the point where it was estimated that the economic cost of alien invasive species to Canada was in the range of the cost of the SARS epidemic. So it's not an inconsequential event. One year we might eliminate one species, but another one will have encroached.

    We know some of the ways in which alien invasive species arrive. Some are transported by real people, and others come in ballast emissions, etc., but IJC says we have voluntary guidelines on ballast emissions, not mandatory regulations. The IJC is called a toothless tiger because it has no authority, mechanism, or tools to do anything about it; it can only generally communicate. I sense you may be in the same position--three governments within the CEC--and having some difficulty as an organization taking actions that may not be popular with the governments that are working together.

    How do you respond to the need to address and the tools you have? Even more bluntly, do you have the tools and resources necessary to discharge your mandate? It included, I believe, three years to create a transboundary environmental assessment mechanism. It's in the articles of your establishment. That has not been done. It is now 10 years later, and I think it was supposed to have been done in about year four. I'm concerned you don't have the tools to do what your mandate intended you to do.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Would you please compress your reply?

    Mr. William Kennedy: On the assessment work you're referring to, I mentioned the Sumas project earlier to the gentleman. This is an instruction to create an agreement among the three countries on environmental impact assessment. It is not an instruction to do an assessment of some particular environmental issue, such as invasive species. Indeed, that agreement has not been negotiated and is a failure, in my own view.

    On the invasive species issue, you asked about resources and structure. Part of the problem has been that our work program has been so diffuse and spread so thinly that we have not been as effective as we should have been. Our hope is that the three governments, in responding to the 10-year review, will set forth a new vision and be very explicit about the priorities for the future, following this 10-year review.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Finally, on your statement about the annual budget of $3 million U.S. for each country, and it not being changed since inception 10 years ago, do you have recourse or some mechanism to make a case that the funding levels have to be reassessed so you can discharge your responsibilities as laid out in the articles of CEC?

    Mr. William Kennedy: I'm not aware of any, other than giving testimony to bodies such as your own to make those in positions like yours aware of the situation.

    I am particularly interested in speaking to the provincial governments in Canada to see if, as signatories, they would be able to help us with additional resources--either money or personnel. There are indications that both Quebec and Alberta might be able to second or detail experts to the secretariat to help us carry on our work.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Reed, please.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    You obviously report to the federal government and presumably to those provinces that have signed on--Quebec and Alberta. There are other provinces that haven't signed on. I wonder if you're able to make an impact on them.

    I say that in the context of electric power. You've done work on developing environmental strategies for the North American electricity market. Electric power generation in Canada is strictly the purview of the provinces. It is not a federal issue. I'm just wondering if you're able to relate to those provinces that haven't signed on. How can we create a situation where it can impact on them?

    Mr. William Kennedy: As far as I'm concerned, all other provinces are more than welcome to sign the agreement and join with us. As I mentioned before, there hasn't been much real cooperation with the three that have signed on. I know that Environment Canada, in reviewing our work program and providing instructions to the secretariat, consults through some kind of intergovernmental process and involves those provincial governments that are also signatories.

    It's my understanding that the Canadian members to the JPAC, for example, reflect the fact that there are three provinces that have signed the agreement. Apart from that, there hasn't been much interaction on a specific project level, or a day-to-day level. That's something I'm trying to encourage and promote.

    On the report you mentioned on electric power generation, this looks at the whole continent from a higher level. There are issues such as the environmental effects of renewable energy versus fossil fuels, and not the specifics of governance in provinces.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I understand that. But my concern is the implementation of those recommendations. Your report will undoubtedly say good things, but it doesn't mean the provinces will necessarily adopt those good things, or even pay attention, if they're not signatories.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: Point taken.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to raise the issue of the Montreal Technoparc. As you know, this site used to be a landfill, then a parking lot, and then it became an industrial park. If I am not mistaken, last April 27 you recommended that a study or an investigation be allowed to proceed. That was your recommendation. As you explained, two ministers of the Environment out of three have to approve the investigation for it to take place.

    Since last April 28, have you received a favourable response from the federal Minister of the Environment approving such an investigation? If not, what reports have you received since April 27 as to the potential for such a review?

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: We have not received a response. As you correctly stated, we have formally submitted to the council our recommendation that we undertake a factual record on Technoparc. We stated in our submission why we felt a factual submission was necessary. This will be reviewed by the three countries, by the council. They will respond to us that either they approve our undertaking the factual record or, by a vote of two-thirds, they will instruct us not to.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: What led you to recommend a review in this case? We know that the federal government was the owner of the site until 1989. At least two investigations have taken place, one of them by Environment Canada which led to an impasse, that is to say that it went nowhere.

    Did the fact that the landowner, some of the period in question was the federal government exert any kind of influence on the methods of investigation? Basically, and you will correct me if I am mistaken, you intend to analyze the investigation methods Environment Canada has used up till now in this matter. Do you believe that the fact that Environment Canada is both judge and stakeholder, since the federal government was the owner of the site and is responsible for the review, may have had an impact on the decision taken by Environment Canada? Is that the reason why you have to act and make a recommendation?

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: I can't respond to the specifics of this case; I'm only familiar with them in a general sense. Maybe to relate it to the process of carrying out a factual record, we first receive a submission from citizens pointing out why they think Environment Canada has not enforced specific environmental laws--in this case for Technoparc. They make their case as to why we should undertake a factual record. If we think this is legitimate, we submit it to the Government of Canada for a response. It replies with its history of the case: what has been done, what the situation has been over the years, and what studies have been undertaken.

    Based on that, the process comes to a close, or the commission feels the answer is not adequate and there is still a need for an independent review and a factual record. That's what we have done in this case. I can't prejudge what will actually come out as a result of that investigation.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: According to what I understand, a complaint is laid by a citizen or a group and you ask the government concerned for information. If the information seems to indicate that nothing irregular has taken place and that there has not been no infringement, you do not recommend an investigation. If you did recommend one, it is because you had some doubts. You believed that the process and method used by Environment Canada may have—and I use the words “may have” advisedly—lacked transparency, may not have been be in compliance with the law.

    So, was your recommendation of April 27 last based on the fact that you had some doubts as to the review methods used by Environment Canada up till now concerning the Montreal Technoparc case?

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes, we feel this submission was a legitimate one, the submitters have a case, and it needs more investigation. We should look more closely at what Environment Canada has actually done.

    Unless Canada, or Mexico and the United States with Canada, instruct us not to carry out the factual record, we will carry it out.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: How long do you give the federal Minister of the Environment to reply to your recommendation?

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: I don't believe there are set time requirements. Usually we receive a response in three to four months. Sometimes it can be longer.

    Mr. Victor Shantora: I'm not familiar with the specifics of this submission, but if we submitted it on April 27, I think it's a bit too early yet to expect a response.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: So there is no deadline? You have not set any time limit. It could take three, four, or ten years. the request has been made, and that is all.

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: There isn't a set limit. I would have to check our history of cases to see what the average time has been, but this hasn't been a problem. I don't think we've waited more than....

    Frankly, if you'll allow me, I think the situation and the criticism, if you will, from commentators and observers of CEC about the citizen submission process is not about the procedural elements. It's the fact that, according to our agreement, what we produce is a factual record that simply lays out the facts. It does not conclude that, for example, Environment Canada has been derelict in its duty, or it has not acted correctly.

    So the CEC cannot become involved in a problem-solving exercise to look for redress. It can simply make a statement of the facts. And there are those who say this is where the term “toothless tiger” might come in, that after a very long process, the end result is simply a reporting of the facts. On the other hand, there are those who point to the fact that, even with a factual record, this has prompted governments to take corrective actions and to respond in a number of positive ways.

    The Chair: Merci, monsieur Bigras.

    Following from Monsieur Bigras' line of questioning, has there been any instance, Mr. Kennedy, in your recollection, of a citizen submission leading to a change in the original decision made by the government of that citizen?

    In asking this question, I'm making reference to the fact that JPAC, the joint public advisory committee, issued advice to council strongly recommending that council--and I quote--“refrain in the future from limiting the scope of factual recordspresented for decision by the Secretariat”.

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes, and I believe the council has yet to respond to that JPAC letter. But let me say that I think there is definite evidence that there have been positive results from the process, although it is not always immediately or directly tied to the specific case.

    Perhaps one example is one of the earliest submissions, which was in Mexico. A group of citizens complained that the Mexican government had issued a permit on the island of Cozumel to build a pier to allow a cruise ship to come into Cozumel. According to the submitters, Mexican law would require them to carry out an environmental impact assessment and to look at the environmental impacts before issuing this permit. In their view, this permit had been issued without that environmental impact assessment, and that was the result of the submission.

    CEC agreed, and we carried out a factual record showing that it was correct. But by the time the factual record was produced, the pier had been built and was in operation. So even if something more adjudicative had been built into the process, it would have been too late.

    In that particular case, then, it was not effective. However, because of the factual record and because of the publicity involved, steps were taken in Mexico to improve the environmental impact assessment process. There's evidence that decisions that followed were more effective because of the CEC.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Effective in what way?

    Mr. William Kennedy: In the enforcement of Mexico's environmental impact assessment procedures.

    The Chair: In other projects?

    Mr. William Kennedy: In other projects.

    The Chair: Well, that's a great consolation, I suppose.

    You referred earlier to the catalytic role of the commission, and you gave the example of DDT. Can you give us other examples?

    Mr. Victor Shantora: Yes, certainly.

    As you know, Canada has a national pollutant release inventory. They publish annually industry-reported toxic substance releases. The United States has a toxics release inventory, similar in nature.

    As well, every year we publish what we call a “taking stock” report that represents sort of a Canada-U.S. overview, where we provide not only the overview but some trends and some indications of whether things are getting better or getting worse. As part of that...and I think that's a significant new feature that was done by the CEC that wouldn't have been done otherwise.

    We're also working with Mexico in terms of a fair degree of capacity building, as they're developing their regulatory PRTR system. Enforcement cooperation in terms of CFC and illegal smuggling across the borders is another example.

    DDT, as Bill mentioned earlier, is perhaps another example, as is the children's health initiative, which is developing North American indicators for children's health.

    So there are probably several examples we could cite.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Some criticism has been expressed to the effect that the council is undermining the secretariat's independence and even threatening the credibility of citizen submissions by limiting the scope of such submissions.

    What would be your answer to such criticism?

    Mr. William Kennedy: As I mentioned before, I think a problem now, that I feel confronted with since I've joined the CEC, in terms of the relationship between the secretariat and the council, is based not so much on specifically the scope of factual records carried out under articles 14 and 15, but is much more related to a kind of blurring, on the part of the secretariat and the council, of the role of the secretariat under various articles.

    For me, it's quite clear that under article 13, independent reports, and articles 14 and 15, citizen submissions, the secretariat has a definite independent role, but in other areas we do not. Because that distinction has not been adhered to on either side, it has led to some misunderstandings and some problems that shouldn't be there.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: I appreciate your frankness, but you see, the impression some of us have from following this commission over the years is that although it carries the name of the environment, and although three ministers of the environment are members of the council, the three ministers really act and decide on issues not as ministers of the environment but as agents of their respective governments--that would include, of course, agents of the departments of trade, finance, and others--and therefore the council acts on behalf of governments with an agenda that's much broader, more complex, and sometimes more obfuscated than the agenda of the single individual environment minister.

    Is that impression incorrect?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Frankly, after six months on the job, that's not my impression. I would be tempted to say it's more even the other way around.

    Again, I would have assumed and hoped that from the trade representatives there would have been much more interest in the work of the commission and in determining our work program and what we're doing. But there is not.

    As I mentioned, the environment ministers, trade representatives, are instructed to meet. They have not.

    So I don't think it's so much a question of other agencies of any of the three governments interfering, if you will. If anything, it's more a question of the environment ministries themselves.... Although, of course, they have review processes and work with other parts of their governments, it is very much an agenda of the ministries of environment.

    The Chair: Under the direction of the departments of foreign affairs, international trade, and other departments also. At any rate, this is speculation, and I appreciate your answer.

    All right, on a second round, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    There are really just two things.

    First of all, it would seem to me you've indicated that, in agreements, clarifications are necessary from a political standpoint. The ministers need to sit down, their departments need to sit down, and they need to clarify such things as, I suppose, citizen's initiative, and so on, and provide better direction than what they have. In other words, they signed the agreement but maybe haven't followed through far enough.

    What do you see as the will for that changing? Do you get the sense that maybe there's hope that this could happen?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Very much so. Just last week there was a retreat of the alt reps in Mexico. This was not a formal meeting of the council by the alt reps, but an informal one in which I and several members of my staff met with the alt reps from the three countries and their staff to have an open-ended session on this draft track report--what the implications were, what kind of response would be needed, ideas about a new vision for CEC. I was very impressed with that. I think there was a real sense that we must look again at CEC, reinvigorate it, specify priorities, what we want to accomplish, reinvigorate the trade environment agenda.

    I think it has been very good that this 10-year review was commissioned, because it has brought things into perspective and I think we're going to get renewed attention from it.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Well, I wish you luck at getting that process to move, because obviously I think you're getting the feeling from the questions, and certainly what we hear out in the field, that it possibly hasn't worked all that well up until now, and it certainly has not been as accessible and as responsive. I couldn't have said it better than our chairman, that sometimes the other influences probably overruled where environment might have been going.

    My second question is in regard to the St. Lawrence Seaway and its dredging, and so on. We've been getting an increasing number of calls in my office about that in terms of the environmental impact, what it means, the public consultation process. It would seem to me that your agency, again, would be paramount because there are two countries involved; it's right on the border, and it affects both countries. It would seem to me that you'd be really actively involved in that project.

    Are you? Has either government requested it? Where is it at? Have citizens requested it? Should we be telling them to request it?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: Well, again, we have not been requested, to my knowledge, on this. If we're not, I wonder if it's because of indeed the distinction between what is a bilateral environmental issue and what is trilateral.

    Mr. Bob Mills: It's bilateral, certainly.

    Mr. William Kennedy: So I could imagine that on the part of the governments or even citizens, this is seen within the framework of IJC before CEC, given its bilateral nature.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I guess, again, we're just kind of giving double-talk to the citizens out there. How the hell do we get something done?

    Everybody has their little definitions of what their areas are. That's not really what people care about. What they care about is, let's have an environmental review; the U.S. army engineers are going to do the project. What are the contaminants; what are the potential pollution problems, the environmental effects?

    It seems to me that's what NAFTA should be all about. Certainly we're two major trading partners. To say, well, Mexico hasn't asked for it, well, why would they? Why would they even care what we do in the St. Lawrence?

    I don't like your answer, and I couldn't give an answer like that up on a stage, answering a question. They'd boo me down. So we need an answer for the people. Maybe that's what they need to negotiate: not so much talk, but how do we get some action?

    Mr. William Kennedy: One thing I can say is that we do have the--as I said, what we've been talking about--citizen submission process. We can be contacted--it doesn't have to be through the governments--by individual citizens concerned about this, and we can take the necessary steps.

    Otherwise, in terms of our normal program of work, we are an organ, if you will, of the three governments. We take our instructions from the ministries of the environment; they set our work plan and our budget, and this specific issue has not been identified by them as something we should look at.

    Mr. Bob Mills: If Canada and the U.S. say yes and Mexico says no, for whatever reason, would it go ahead?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    We have Monsieur Marcil, Monsieur Bigras, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Szabo, and the chair.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, to reply to Mr. Mills' question, I would say that there is currently a Canada-US study concerning the modernization of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This study discusses reviewing all of its existing infrastructure for the purpose of modernizing it, of rebuilding the locks, computerizing them and so on, but it has nothing to do with the dredging of the St. Lawrence or of the seaway.

    The other study is strictly American and does not involve the Canadian government. The US Army Corps of Engineers may be studying the possibility of widening the seaway, but Canada is not involved in that study. The St. Lawrence Seaway includes the Great Lakes, but it goes through the St. Lawrence River at one point, through an exclusively Canadian zone. This raises the issue of Canadian sovereignty. Americans would be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They could not set that requirement aside.

    Furthermore, Canada will oppose the widening of the seaway. I don't see what their commission can do in all of this. When the Americans reached Canadian territory, this would become a strictly Canadian problem and they would be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It would be unimaginable to think that... It would take them years and years, because the population, the provinces, everyone would object. When it comes to designing a project, the purpose of the project cannot be strictly economic, it cannot have as its purpose strictly to further American trade.

    Confusion is often created in people's minds by saying that the Canadian government is currently taking part in a study with the Americans to examine the potential widening of the seaway. That is totally false. Things absolutely have to be clearer, because there are two completely distinct projects. In one of them, the Canadian government and the American government are working together for the purpose of modernizing the locks, outdated infrastructures and things of that nature. The other project is strictly American, and the Canadian government has nothing to do with it. Even if the Americans decided one day to broaden the seaway, they would need the consent of the Canadian government. I don't think they would obtain it.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

    Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Marcil seems to be an eternal optimist. Good for him, but for my part, I believe first and foremost in the principles of prudence and precaution. If the government is really serious, it should take the trouble to write to the American government to tell it clearly that we have no intention whatsoever of broadening the St. Lawrence Seaway. I urge the commission in any case to be cautious in this regard and to follow this matter carefully, as it is of capital importance for the people of Quebec. The people of Quebec are attached to their river and do not wish to see the government base its decisions simply on trade and economics considerations.

    On the matter of biodiversity, I see that you have highlighted the issue of transgenic maize over the past few years. As I'm sure you are aware, a few months ago the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety came into effect. You also know that Canada, like many other countries, was a part of the Miami group, which naturally refused to ratify that accord.

    What were your recommendations? As you said, your mandate is to foster the conservation of our environment in the context of increasing economic and trade links among the three countries.

    Do you believe that transgenic products should be submitted to different regulations than those that apply to non-transgenic products? Basically, even if we want to protect biodiversity, if we don't draw that conclusion, we are straying very far from the precautionary principle that is set out in the Cartagena Protocol.

    What recommendations did the Commission for Environmental Cooperation make with regard to the Cartagena Protocol as concerns the different regulatory treatment that should apply to products containing GMOs, the process and regulations that govern their manipulation, transportation and use? Do you recommend the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol?

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: This article 13 report is a very good example of what the CEC can do and what is unique about the CEC. The governments did not ask us to carry out a study on transgenic maize or transgenic anything. This is not part of the work program officially approved by the government. Under article 13, the executive director can--and there are budgetary resources for this--carry out an independent study on a particular environmental issue of interest and concern in North America. My predecessor, about a year and a half ago, after having been approached, I believe, by a number of environmental groups and agricultural communities in Mexico, identified this as a legitimate focus for an article 13 report. To be frank, I'm not sure I would have done that had I been the executive director at the time, only because it seems to me that the issue of transgenic or GMO is of course broader than simply corn. As you know, there have been discussions in Canada about wheat. In my personal way of thinking, the focus of a CEC report would have been on genetically modified products across the board and the relationship to NAFTA and trade in North America.

    Be that as it may, as I say, my predecessor felt this was a legitimate topic for an article 13 report, and it was carried out. It was carried out very much in the way an independent organization like CEC, an environmental watchdog, does. Local communities, industry, scientists, and a wide-ranging environmental advisory board were involved, and we've had public consultations. The final report is being finalized now. It is being sent to the three governments tomorrow for their approval to release it to the public. When they do, you will see what the findings are. I do not believe there is any recommendation about the Cartagena Protocol, because that was not the focus of this study.

º  (1655)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I want us to understand each other.

    Since the protocol is in effect, there is an international consensus to the effect that transgenic products must be governed by different rules than non-transgenic products, and this includes their manipulation as well as their use. Consequently, all of the trade regulations must be different. This translates into the precautionary principle, which is included in the Cartagena Protocol. Your mandate is to see to the protection of the environment.

    Am I to understand that you do not recommend to the government that these products be subject to different regulations? Is that what you are saying? You are supposed to be mandated to protect our environment and our biodiversity and there is an international consensus on this matter, and yet you have made no recommendation concerning trade involving transgenic products.

[English]

    Mr. William Kennedy: The objectives of this particular report were to analyze the likely effects of current and future transgenic maize as compared to non-transgenic maize in Mexico on biodiversity, social diversity, and the local culture and the economic impacts. Those were the terms of reference for this study, and that's what we have done. It was not broader than that. It did not go into assessing the utility or non-utility of the Cartagena Protocol.

    The Chair: Merci, monsieur Bigras.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I was going to pass, but Mr. Kennedy made a comment in response to mine about cynicism. I think what you're hearing from us is that we have a realistic view of the commission. I have not been convinced by anything I've heard today that the next 10 years are going to be any better than the last 10. Hopefully, some of us will be around to point that out to you at the end of the next 10-year period.

    Is any consideration being given to moving the commission from this side agreement to being more integrated into the NAFTA and empowering it to actually make recommendations and enforce those recommendations that would have the effect of enhancing and protecting our environment?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Personally, I am not aware of any moves in that regard. I would suggest it's probably a question for Minister Anderson and the Minister of Trade. I'm not personally aware of that.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That's all I had, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The area I wanted to ask you about was prompted by the response that if it was a bilateral matter in the St. Lawrence, it would involve the IJC or someone else. It leads me to the concern that we haven't established what the shared values of the three countries are, so we cannot rationalize things if they're part of the value system.

    For example, with regard to Kyoto, Kyoto has been a very difficult subject for many countries. In Canada, there has been a great debate, but Canada has signed on. In Canada, I think Kyoto had a great boost because of the clear linkages to the health file. I think, arguably, it is quite relevant to talk about health impacts and pollutants, not only greenhouse gas emissions, because the processes are linked.

    Congratulations on being the new chair of the CEC. As an American citizen, you probably are quite familiar with the American position on Kyoto and quite familiar with the fact that one of the biggest problems we have in Canada with regard to the importation of pollutants and transboundary pollution comes to us from the Ohio Valley. In fact, coal generation of hydro is the principal source. It has a very significant impact on Canada, so it affects our value system, and I suspect it also affects your value system.

    How do you rationalize it when a major decision as to the position on Kyoto is different between the United States and Canada and still allow yourself to be responsible for reporting on the priorities and recommendations on how to deal with things? It would seem to me that a country's long-term strategy on hydro generation by dirty coal, because it's plentiful and cheap from Pennsylvania, or something like that, would be reason enough to say it's going to pre-empt making a contribution to reducing the pollutants crossing the border.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: Again, I would say those are primarily questions for the governments who instruct us to answer.

    I think it's quite clear that we are dealing, in our current work program and in the past, with issues related to climate change. In the reports we've done on the electricity sector, we're doing a lot of work now on renewable energy and energy efficiency that have a direct relationship to climate change. There has been agreement by all three parties to undertake that work.

    Where there has not been any agreement is when we look specifically at issues related to the Kyoto Protocol. In any other circumstances, one might assume the CEC would be in a position to facilitate CBM projects among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, but we have not been instructed to look into this issue.

    I am personally hopeful that emissions trading is generally something where the CEC can play a role, not only for greenhouse gas emissions but for sulphur dioxide, NO_x, and other areas where, given our status, we can contribute something.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Finally, notwithstanding the character of some of the questions, which are somewhat probing and interesting, I would hope you would consider the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of the House of Commons to be a friend and a contact. I think it's always important, when witnesses or guests come to renew acquaintances and give updates, to invite them specifically to tell us how we can help them do a better job.

    Mr. William Kennedy: Thank you. I hope you'll think of us as a friend as well, and I would be quite happy to come back to you with some specifics on how you could help us.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: That's fair enough.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Kennedy, to follow up on Mr. Mills' intervention earlier and as an extension to the sentiments he expressed, I would like to ask you a question related to Canada's national advisory committee. A few years ago it made the following statement, that the commission “must demonstrate that it is willing to identify and act on significant environmental problems, even when those actions may not be popular with one or more of the member governments.”

    Can you give us some examples of where this has taken place?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: Well, I think the clearest is with the article 13 reports we have done. In all these issues, as I've said, these were not prompted by the governments; they were prompted by the secretariat.

    In the case of this most recent one on maize in Mexico, I was not privy to the internal discussions of the council, but--

    The Chair: Did you refer to another one on electricity?

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes, on electricity.

    The Chair: And then?

    Mr. William Kennedy: There was one on migratory birds.

    The Chair: For migratory birds you had been requested by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, right? So you had been asked; you did not act as a commission on your own initiative. You had been requested by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.

    Mr. William Kennedy: Yes. It's my understanding that my predecessors, in deciding on whether or not to carry out a specific article 13 report, of course talked to a variety of interested parties: NGOs, the private sector, or whatever. Indeed, the particular reports might have been prompted specifically by the Sierra Club or others. My point was simply that within the CEC family, if you will, the formal decision to carry out an article 13 action is not from the council, that is, from the three governments; it is from the secretariat.

    The Chair: Then Mr. Comartin has made an interesting intervention, in which he advocated for and asked you about moving from cooperation to protection, if I remember correctly. Of course, this would mean quite a change in your mandate, because presently your mandate is cooperation, and you can only cooperate if your three masters are willing to cooperate. So in essence, really, we should have the three ministers of the environment before this committee to really get to the root of the problem.

    Is that a fair observation?

    Mr. William Kennedy: That is a fair observation, I would say, yes.

    The Chair: Then my conclusion would be that the role of the council hasn't been exemplary so far; it could have a much better record. But you cannot comment on that, I suppose.

    Mr. William Kennedy: I think, as you will see from the 10-year review report, this independent commission has to some extent taken the council to task for not giving the CEC the attention it deserves.

    The Chair: Do you think there is a chance we could move the mandate of the commission from cooperation to protection?

    Mr. William Kennedy: I think this is something you would need to broach with the Minister of the Environment. It's a much more complicated question.

    Let me put it like this. As I said, I have not been in North America the last 10 years; I was working in Europe. Now, I very much dealt with European environmental standards in my position at the European bank because our environmental policy required that any country that was receiving a loan from us had to adhere to EU environmental standards even though they were not a part of the EU, but with a view to them joining it. I had assumed, not having followed NAFTA and CEC, that through NAFTA and the CEC there was a move towards harmonization of environmental standards in North America, and I thought that part of the CEC's work would be involved in this harmonization effort, unlike a bank would do, but nonetheless....

    But I see that is not the case. There is definitely an interest in cooperating on environmental quality, and the PRTR work we do is in that direction. But NAFTA is not the European Union, obviously.

    I think, at the heart of it, the answer to your question is a basic one of, to what extent are the three NAFTA countries interested in forming a more perfect union in the same sense as the Europeans talk about it? I don't see any evidence of that myself. So to the extent that is not there, I would say the move from cooperation to something more specific is probably not imminent.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Marleau.

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I want to go back to the report on maize. Now, did I get this right? You used article 13 to do something on maize and there's a publication on some of the findings, but are you submitting your report now to the council before you can make it public?

    You're able to put out a kind of brochure explaining what you've done. Is there that much difference between what you're submitting to the council for their approval before you can go public and what's actually in this paper here? I'm just a little mixed up, because you seem to have quite a factual report here.

    Mr. William Kennedy: The situation is that we have done quite a bit of work on this article 13 and indeed have a report, I believe, that's eight or nine chapters long, looking at the various aspects or effects of transgenic maize.

    Now, the final report is essentially a 20-page document that is the summary of the findings and the recommendations based on this larger work. We have covered our larger work in our Trio, our newsletter, and all those chapters are also on our website. So as to the decision about what to release to the public, the final report is this 20 pages of findings and recommendations. That's been very difficult to process, given the wide range of interests and people involved in the advisory committee. That is being finalized today. It will be sent to the parties with the request that they make a decision as to whether that final report, those 20 pages, will be made public.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: That's along with the recommendations, because in that case you do have recommendations.

    Mr. William Kennedy: Exactly.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: So this isn't like the others, where it's just a factual recital of what's happened.

    Mr. William Kennedy: That's correct.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: I have one more little wee question. You're new, of course, but why haven't the three ministers met? It just seems very strange that the CEC was structured and was basically put in place so they could meet more often, yet you tell us they've not met at all.

    Mr. William Kennedy: Of course, the three environment ministers meet; they meet once a year. They represent our council.

    The meeting that has not taken place is the one where the agreement instructs the commission that the three environment ministers should meet with the trade ministers, with their trade counterparts, to discuss environment and trade linkages. It's that meeting that has not happened.

    Of course, the three environmental ministers meet, yes.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Marleau.

    To conclude, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Shantora, we are very indebted to you for having come all the way to Ottawa and for having provided some very interesting answers to the questions put by members of this committee. We definitely look forward to the 10-year report, which presumably might see the light of day in a month or two.

    Mr. William Kennedy: That's correct.

    The Chair: We will study it very carefully.

    I think Madam Marleau's question a moment ago also points to the fact that this commission was a very clever idea on the eve of the of the signature of the NAFTA agreement, in order to get the NAFTA agreement, that is, let's keep the labour people and the environmental people happy. We will launch two commissions, and this will somehow remove the last inhibitions or doubts and give momentum to the signature, which took place in 1993, I believe.

    Time has proven...well, perhaps it's too soon to judge, but evidently there is need to give muscle to the commission. I don't know much about the labour commission in Washington.

    This commission could certainly do more, but your answer earlier to Mr. Comartin's intervention does not give rise to many hopes. Evidently the environment commission is a poor distant cousin to the trade forces at the centre of NAFTA.

    The challenge will probably be how to turn the environment commission into a strong partner, a strong participant in the interface between trade and environment. Of course, that will require political will and some interesting guidance.

    To conclude, on behalf of my colleagues, we thank you very much. We look forward to another meeting in the not-too-distant future.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. William Kennedy: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.