ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

• 0903

[Translation]

The Chair (Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. Today's agenda is very simple: the future business of the committee.

[English]

You have received the notice in your office, which concerns discussing the work of this committee. Perhaps we should start with a review of the item that will take precedence when it is given second reading. It is the legislation on species at risk and how we want to organize the work.

• 0910

Some members have written to me, and some have spoken to me about items they would like this committee to examine within the overall schedule. As you know, there are always delays and there are always arrangements that don't come through that provide opportunities for other work.

If you are in agreement, we could first examine the work that lies ahead with respect to Bill C-5.

You may recall that Mr. Knowles, the former clerk of this committee, who is present in the room—good morning—prepared quite a comprehensive list of potential witnesses. As you may recall, the list was organized in an orderly fashion by Mr. Knowles into some 14 panels so that the witnesses would appear in groups of three or four, and they would be like-minded, so to say.

The grouping was also intended to facilitate the work of the committee. The list will be distributed so that you can see how it stands and whether the witnesses should be regrouped. But dates cannot be attached to the list because we don't have the bill yet. Nevertheless, it's important that some thinking take place on the grouping of witnesses.

Some members have asked whether the committee should travel or not. Travel is very expensive. This morning the clerk produced the latest figures. If the committee were to go to five cities it would require a budget of some $169,000. The committee will have to decide whether to travel or not. In the past, we have worked out of Ottawa and paid the travel expenses for witnesses to come to Ottawa, and we also saved time. This can be discussed if you like.

Finally, there may be other items connected with Bill C-5 you may wish to raise. I will open the floor for a brief discussion so that the clerk and I can get some sense of your thoughts on this matter.

Mr. Mills, would you like to go first?

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Certainly I think it's very important that we have the right witnesses giving us a full range of the pros and cons. There's a lot of misunderstanding about the legislation and I think the witnesses can clear it up.

• 0915

I put together an initial list of about 18 witnesses I feel should come. There are a number of others we could add and possibly mesh together the lists, as other members will know this side or that side. I think it's important sometimes to see the extremes and then get to the middle. I hope it will be possible.

The Chair: Thank you. We have your list and we will see whether there are duplications or integrations required. Your point is well taken, that misunderstandings ought to be clarified.

I forgot to mention that when the committee examined the previous bill, and when we went into clause-by-clause, we were assisted by Professor Rounthwaite from the University of Calgary. He was a very knowledgeable person who offered his services. At the clause-by-clause stage, he was quite helpful in analysing amendments and in commenting on the effect of the bill.

Some of you—like Ms. Carroll—have already spoken to me about contacting Mr. Rounthwaite. Perhaps the clerk can bring us up to date on what he said.

The Clerk of the Committee: I'm still trying to reach him.

The Chair: All right, fine. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I would like to support the committee having a contract with Mr. Rounthwaite. The last time when we had him here he was very, very helpful.

The Chair: All right.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: He's very dedicated to the process as well.

The Chair: And also very knowledgeable. We will contact him.

Yes, Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I'm surprised that the clerk is having difficulty reaching Professor Rounthwaite.

The Clerk: My assistant is working on it right now. Do you have a number?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I don't have it right with me, but I will call you with it.

The Clerk: Okay.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: He does need some advance notice, obviously, and that will depend on our discussions today.

I might add that he has a background in federal-provincial and constitutional matters, which will be very important as we look at this bill. So he provides both.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): On the issue of travelling, I think it's important that we hear from the witnesses in their home provinces. It makes a difference if we're hearing from the Alberta Cattlemen's Association and we go to Alberta. It creates the sense that we're reaching out to them. Oftentimes, people in the regions feel very distant from Ottawa. I think that if we could travel, it would be a useful process and worth the money. I would vote that we travel.

The Chair: Duly noted. Thank you.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm sorry that Mr. Laliberte isn't here, as I think he might have provided some useful input on this topic as well.

The Chair: Yes, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I apologize, Mr. Chair, I don't have my witness list in front of me. The last time there were some strong recommendations made about calling witnesses from the United States who had experience with endangered species legislation. Mr. Mills had noted that there was a lot of misinformation and lack of understanding around the bill. Certainly there is a huge amount of misunderstanding about the American legislation. I think it's important that we have the discussion, because by hearing witnesses and debating the other piece of legislation from way back when, the issue of the American legislation came up over and over again.

Our legislation was identified as being identical to the American legislation—which it's not—and there were a lot of things said about the American legislation that are not necessarily true.

• 0920

I think it would be really useful to have people who can talk about the American experience and the legislation, because it is a huge sticking point.

The Chair: Thank you. Yes, and there were discussions last June, and a name was identified and there is a wildlife service person somewhere. Yes, I think that name was on the list of witnesses. Thank you for reminding us.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I just wanted to reiterate that of course there's massive opposition to it in my constituency and a lot of Alberta. It's always the U.S. example that's mentioned. That's the biggest thing. And they can list ten examples of what it has done to the individual rancher or whatever. So I think it's very important to hear that side of it.

The Chair: Good. We're making progress. We are now assuming that the bill could be given second reading some time next week, although it's very hard to make predictions around here. It is quite possible that we could start hearing from witnesses—the ones in Ottawa—beginning with the minister and then the department two weeks from today. We can certainly plan ahead and I'm sure the clerk could line up witnesses as soon as the bill is given second reading.

As for travel, we'll have to find out the procedure to obtain permission to travel and to obtain funds.

Yes, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I was just going to add, next week is a break week. I think it's reasonable to assume the bill won't likely get finished this week. If it's going to be finished soon, it'll be finished the week after we get back. So in terms of our work plan, if we wanted to fill that first week, perhaps with biotech as suggested by Mrs. Kraft Sloan or that of—

An hon. member: Clifford.

Mr. Gar Knutson: For planning purposes only, we can assume that we'll start dealing with endangered species three weeks from today.

The Chair: That takes us to the second item on our agenda today, the other business related to requests by members of this committee or colleagues at large. And you have two requests.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): No, I was just going to say, Charles, I thought you were bringing up other business. I just wanted to make note that in the future I'd like to discuss drinking water and fresh water in Canada, both in terms of drinking water—

The Chair: We can do it now, if you like.

Mr. Andy Savoy: No, no, it's just for future reference. I'd like to make it a priority for the environment committee to discuss those issues, both in terms of the health impact of contaminated water sources and the protection of our freshwater resources. As we know, it's a very valuable resource in Canada that grows in value every day.

The Chair: There is an initiative by a colleague of ours to form a subcommittee on fresh water. If that initiative is approved by the House leaders, then there will be a subcommittee dealing with the issue of fresh water safety and availability within the system.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Maybe it is that subcommittee, is that correct? Dennis Mills?

The Chair: So we'll have to watch for that possibility.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay.

The Chair: But we make due note of your suggestion.

Now, three items have been raised. One was by Madam Kraft Sloan, who indicated the desirability of having an examination of the Royal Society of Canada's study on food biotechnology. It came out weeks ago. Some of you have probably seen it, or have even read it. It is of enormous significance in the way it puts across its message and for how much is said between the lines. As Mr. Knutson was suggesting, if I understood him correctly, that could be an item for the committee to examine as we get organized for the endangered species legislation.

• 0925

The other item is also being circulated by way of a letter from Mr. Lincoln, who would like the committee to examine the issue of MMT, a gasoline additive. He makes a case in his letter, which is in your hands.

Then you have the fresh water item, which we'll have to keep on a back burner until a decision is made on that subcommittee proposed by Mr. Mills.

Madam Kraft Sloan and Madam Carroll.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Before we begin discussion of the letter I had circulated with regard to the Royal Society report on biotechnology, there is another topic that, when we finish endangered species, we may also want to consider as a committee, and that's the whole issue of risk assessment.

I think it's a very important issue in terms of how public policy decisions are made, particularly ones that affect the environmental portfolio. Certainly, when we were studying the pesticide report, this was an area of great concern. A number of witnesses suggested there were some real problems with risk assessment, and it seems to be the crux of a lot of things we're doing as a government, whether it's on the health file or the environment file.

I'm just putting that out there. We don't need to discuss that right now, because I think it's more important to discuss things that are in front of us in the short term and are of shorter duration.

The Chair: This is a very interesting proposition. Keep in mind, however, that it is a highly technical item, and we would have to overcome tremendous hurdles in getting into the substance of it, as we found already when we did the pesticide report. We will put it down as a possibility—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In the longer term.

The Chair: —but I don't know whether we will tackle that.

But this brings to mind the pesticide report and the suggestion made by a colleague of ours, verbally, that we should invite the Minister of Health before this committee to elaborate and explain and answer questions on the government reply to the pesticide report produced by this committee. That is a document we didn't pay attention to, because the election was called and we were away. But it is an item that certainly would require attention. I think it would be quite interesting for members of the committee.

Madam Carroll and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: If I understand Mr. Lincoln's letter, Mr. Chair, dealing with the MMT issue, and as it relates to chapter 11 of NAFTA, it might fit—I don't know if this is too optimistic—neatly between today and when endangered species comes to committee, because it has firm parameters, as I understand from speaking with Madam Kraft Sloan.

I don't know the procedure, whether we're going to move that we go ahead with this. I certainly think the committee should respond favourably to him, partly because I've been involved in Methanex versus the U.S.A. and attempts to get IIST amicus curiae status, in which we were successful. So I think all of it is coming into chapter 11 at a very opportune time.

Whether we do it now or later, I'd like to go on the record as strongly supporting it.

With regard to Mr. Savoy's comments on fresh water, I do understand Mr. Mills is going to strike a subcommittee, and you say we're going to get a decision. But because I strongly believe that the place for us as members of Parliament to best influence public policy is within the standing committees, I have some concern about a separate committee of any nature being struck to deal with something as vital as water, if indeed it is the House leaders' decision to go ahead with that. I would hope, Mr. Chair, that the subcommittee would report through this standing committee.

The Chair: Fine. I would urge you to make that point also with the House leaders, so they are made aware of your suggestion. It's a good point. I don't know whether it will go very far, considering the proposal made by Dennis Mills.

• 0930

Mr. Morawski, would you like to say how?

The Clerk: The subcommittee would have to report back to the parent committee, to the one that creates it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Which isn't unusual.

The Clerk: No.

The Chair: Now, in our discussion, I ask you to focus on the fact that this Thursday morning, for instance, we have a slot that is vacant, that is unfilled, unused. Can you see a topic that we could examine this Thursday despite the short notice? Perhaps Mr. Lincoln's letter is one, but I don't know. I would invite you to make interventions to that effect.

Mr. Herron, Mr. Mills, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Sorry, Mr. Chair, I had to leave the room for a moment. Was a decision reached with respect to travelling under SARA?

The Chair: No, it was only a suggestion, and I replied to it by saying we'll have to inquire about travel permission and whether we can obtain the travel funds.

Mr. John Herron: The other issue is that sometimes it has been healthy for us to address an issue when we've had some spots to fill, but I know that when we get into SARA, it's going to be a very tight schedule. I would expect that we would probably end up meeting numerous times per week. If that's the situation, and if we augment that with travel, we don't necessarily have to adopt special issues. I'm not necessarily overly endeared about addressing issues such as the MMT issue or something down the road.

I have a different perspective on the MMT thing. It was the Government of Canada's perspective that they should ban that as a tradable commodity, and that made it subject to section 11 of NAFTA. If they had banned it as a schedule 1 toxin under CEPA, under ministerial protocol, utilizing a precautionary principle, it never would have been susceptible to any kind of trade intervention. So if we want to re-raise the MMT debate, that is what the Senate has actually studied and that was the Senate's position on MMT.

We met with some individuals last session with respect to the Petitcodiac River and made commitments that the subcommittee would actually look into that particular issue. We have some past homework that still has to be addressed before we start taking on some other pet prior to dealing with SARA, so I don't think we need to stack up the committee on pet projects until we get to SARA.

The Chair: Mr. Mills, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Bob Mills: I don't think MMT is quite so simple that you could just sort of whack it off in one meeting either. I think really it comes down to the issue of the automobile manufacturers and the petroleum industry. I think really what you need is a third party to analyse the data from both of those and then to come up with a decision.

I don't think it's a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of the fact that a lot of the research, a lot of the information, is from a very biased source on either side. Somewhere, again, I think you need that moderation. For a committee to really do a job on MMT, I think you would have to look at both of those and then have that independent ruling on MMT. So I don't see it being something that you could just do in one two-hour session or that sort of thing.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Mills and Mr. Herron are opening ancient wounds in here.

Mr. John Herron: We didn't raise the subject.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan would like to make an intervention.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if we have one two-hour opening Thursday morning, which means, first, that we don't have a lot of time to organize witnesses, and second, that we don't have a lot of time to explore a subject, could I recommend that we take a look at what I had put forward in my letter? We could have someone from the Royal Society come in to do a briefing on the biotechnology report. It's a very timely report.

It's important to note that in terms of some of the topics the committee has already looked at around confidential business information, around dual mandate, and around independent research. All those issues are things we've already explored through the pesticide report.

• 0935

As well, it's really important to note that while the Government of Canada funded the report, it has not been circulated to members of Parliament. It would be very easy to bring in witnesses from the Royal Society of Canada just to give us a briefing on what's in the report and to touch on some of the highlights. It's a very self-contained exercise. It doesn't get into some of the complications the other issues do. I think that we have already made a commitment to Mr. Herron concerning the Petitcodiac River. I think it's very important that we fulfil that commitment at some point. I'd be more than happy to sit and have a chat with you about that, John.

The other thing is the MMT issue. If there is a lull in our work with endangered species, there's always a period of time when the amendments have to be prepared and things like that done. That's an opportunity for us to take a look at that over a two- or three-day period because, granted, it's not something you can cover in a two-hour session. This is something that can be covered. I think it's a very important report, and it hasn't been circulated to members of Parliament. I'm sure a lot of us would want to ask the scientists questions about the scientific work they've done in biotechnology.

The Chair: That's an interesting intervention. Thank you.

As to the river, Madam Kraft Sloan, in your role as vice-chair, if you would like to discuss the matter with Mr. Herron, it may be that a subcommittee could eventually be formed around the project and you could then report back to the whole committee. It is something that might be resolved that way.

As to the Royal Society, if you are certain that the Royal Society can appear at such short notice and if the committee is inclined to do so, we could certainly utilize next Thursday's slot for that purpose and maybe ask for the room for an extra hour, because it will be very difficult to finish in an hour and a half or two hours. But at least we could give it a good, initial overview and at least examine the recommendations and have them explained. As you say, we could have the report distributed. Apparently, it has not been distributed.

Is there consensus on Madam Kraft Sloan's idea?

[Translation]

I am sorry, Mr. Bigras. You wanted to ask a question?

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I wanted to respond briefly to the comments made by my colleagues, Mr. Herron and Mr. Mills. I agree with them entirely. I think that a very short session on the issue of MMT would be premature for two reasons. Firstly, there are no studies that show the impact of MMT. We must also apprise ourselves of the position of the United States environmental commission on the matter. So limiting the study of this issue to one or two hearings would not be appropriate, all the more so since Mr. Lincoln's bill, as you will remember, was not supposed to be voted on. So inevitably, it will not be coming back to committee. I understand that this would not be the object of the operation here, but it would nevertheless be the theme of the bill.

Moreover, we should not forget that at this time, we are still debating the bill on endangered species and for the opposition, in any case for the opposition spokespeople on the matter, debates in the House of Commons have to be managed. We have to take that into account as well. There are members who want to speak in the House of Commons. It is our responsibility as spokespeople to make that possible in the House of Commons.

I understand that the government party did not necessarily participate in this debate, but we will also have a responsibility concerning the management of debates that are taking place currently in the House on endangered species. So I think it is important that the committee take that reality into account in the organization of its work. It is fundamental since there are members in the House at this time who want to continue to express themselves on this topic. I think that we have to be open to that and see to it that the committee not function in a vacuum, but in co-operation with others, and that it be consistent with the work that is going on in the House as well.

The Chair: Thank you for your statement on MMT. We will be sharing the committee's conclusions with Mr. Lincoln. That will be our clerk's responsibility, naturally.

• 0940

As for Bill C-5, if there are several colleagues who want to take part in the debate and if we want to improve management of the debate, as you said, we could suggest to the leaders of each party that an open night sitting be held beginning at 8 o'clock p.m., which would allow all the members who want to speak to do so during the evening or the night, until 4 in the morning. We could thus put an end to the debate with this special sitting, but to do that we must obtain the consent of all five parties.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that this is a recommendation you are going to make today to the government leader in the House?

The Chair: Not necessarily today.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Well, they will be meeting soon.

The Chair: If the members present from all the opposition parties are willing to ask their respective leaders, I am willing to do the same with our leader. We could ask for their consent, on condition that the other parties agree. I could very well make that proposal.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I think this business is important enough, and certainly a number of people across Canada are interested enough in it, for House time to be used for that debate. But I've been involved in a number of after-hours debates, and although it's fine to say that maybe they accomplish something, often they are given to only two people in the House. You're giving a speech that you're rather involved in and impassioned about, but when only two members are there listening it's pretty discouraging. The two members may even be from your own party.

I probably have been involved in five or six of those in terms of foreign affairs, and at the end I had to say it accomplished absolutely nothing. It didn't make you feel as a member of Parliament that you really got your voice out there on behalf of your constituents or whatever.

So it would take a lot of convincing for me to agree that after-hours debate on this issue would be very meaningful or helpful.

The Chair: This is very true what you're saying, Mr. Mills, and I concur with you, but I would add that the presence of a handful of members in the House can be observed even if the debate takes place in normal hours.

Mr. Bob Mills: People are supposed to be on duty, at least.

The Chair: They seem to drift in to the lobbies to make a phone call or to drink a cup of coffee. So that situation would exist in both instances.

In order to move on, I repeat, I'm ready, as chair, to make this suggestion to the House leader the moment I receive from the four parties in opposition an indication that they are doing the same.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think your suggestion is an excellent one. It would give us an opportunity to talk about wildlife in Canada and endangered species, perhaps just within the context of the legislation or perhaps not. I find it surprising that Mr. Mills would think it was a waste of time to have an opportunity to talk openly with Canadians and the public, because certainly there are more people at home after eight o'clock. Parliament is for Canadians. It's not just for the members of the House.

Mr. Bob Mills: They're not going to turn off Survivor for it, though.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: You'd rather compete with The Bold and the Beautiful at two o'clock?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, as someone who is a member of a party that's supposed to be representing public interests and the grassroots, here's an opportunity for constituents to see what you do.

• 0945

The Chair: We don't want to get into a debate on this matter right now. We'll move on.

That understanding is there, Monsieur Bigras, and if any member of the opposition on this committee wishes to let me know, I'm prepared to make my representation on behalf of this good cause.

Madame Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would point out that there's been an indication on both sides of the House that this is very important work that Canadians clearly feel is a priority. In the House we've heard an awful lot of talk about empowering committees. I would suggest that this has been much debated and there is a level of awareness among Canadians. I think there's a sense on all sides of the House that if it comes to committee, we can hear from Canadians and we can do the constructive, good work that committees are meant to do. That may be the most important route, to bring it, as expeditiously as possible, to this committee, where it can be discussed in full.

The Chair: Thank you.

Let me try to summarize what progress we've made so far and see whether we can move toward a conclusion.

On an intervention by Mr. Herron on the Petitcodiac River in New Brunswick, the two members over there are undertaking to form a subcommittee and to report back on their findings or recommendations.

On the Royal Society, we have the suggestion by Madame Kraft Sloan that a knowledgeable person appear as a witness before the committee on Thursday. Unless I hear any dissenting voices, we could have on Thursday morning a session on that report, which in the meantime, through the offices of Madame Kraft Sloan, will be sent to each member of the committee. That means when you come on Thursday you will have had at least a chance to read the recommendations compressed into two or three pages.

On MMT, I hear negative signals—

Mr. John Herron: Are we definitely having that committee meeting on Thursday? Is that confirmed?

The Chair: I take it that we will have on Thursday morning, unless there is a negative voice—

Mr. John Herron: I'm one.

The Chair: —a session with the Royal Society on the food safety and biotechnology report.

Madame Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: We'll go Thursday and we'll do the Royal Society—

An hon. member: What other pet projects are we going to be doing?

The Chair: On MMT, we hear negative voices or signals. As to the debate in the House of Commons, or bringing the bill to committee, we have discussed the possibility, but it remains an open question, valid any time. Any time the members of the four opposition parties decide to make representations to the House leader, I would be glad to undertake to do the same.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Perhaps I can add that I agree with Ms. Redman that by bringing it to committee for a full viewing, a full hearing, as wide as we can make it, we can gain the information that I think is sought. I believe that's a better way than being here at three in the morning so that someone can speak. If speaking is going to be done, it can be done at future stages by our members. I will try to convince my caucus that this is the way we should do it. Give a few of them a chance to say what they want and then bring it to committee.

The Chair: Madame Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Since I think debating in the House and working in committee are two pretty important pursuits and opportunities for MPs, I'm not going to question where the committee wants to go on the appropriate balance. I would say, however, that it might be useful to consider holding some of these committee hearings in Centre Block, where they can be televised on CPAC. I think interest among Canadians is sufficiently widespread that this would be well appreciated by the Canadian public. That way it will be caught by not just the people who get to come here, be it the working press or be it the witnesses, but also by the viewer who doesn't have to stay up until three in the morning.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yesterday the clerk gave me his assurance that he has that concern very high on his list and that he is making requests to beam that committee as frequently as possible, as warranted, of course, by the subject matter. A meeting like this would be wasted on CPAC. But, for instance, the moment the minister appears before the committee on Bill C-5, that would be a meeting for the television room, and subsequent meetings as well. So we have that assurance.

• 0950

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

On the response by the government to the pesticides report, do I take it that we should wait until the Minister of Health is back in the House, and then we'll sound him out, and depending on how the schedule is at that time, we will invite him to come to the committee and defend the government response? Do I take it that there is consensus along those lines?

Mr. John Herron: Something like that is a high priority then.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: Adopting another project then.

The Chair: It is a priority, then, the river? Definitely, yes. We have to wait for Mr. Rock to do that.

Mr. John Herron: The river and the pesticides report are issues we didn't close off as a committee last fall. So we have an obligation to clean our house first on issues we haven't finalized before we start getting on to a personal issue. We have a commitment to the Parliament of Canada to follow up on the pesticides report.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. Mr. Herron, this committee has had a longstanding attachment to biotechnology. So it's a two-hour session.

Mr. John Herron: I wouldn't say it's a longstanding—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's very longstanding.

Mr. John Herron: We had a three-and-a-half-year hiatus then.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We had a very long.... But, Mr. Chair, as for your question about whether we should wait for the minister's health to improve, when he comes back to the House, etc., that's fine. But I'm wondering if we know when the government is going to introduce the amended PCPA.

The Chair: No, we don't. This would be one of the reasons for bringing him here, because his appearance before the committee would also allow him to transmit certain signals to cabinet and to his department. So it is important that somehow the event take place soon, but we have to wait until he has recovered.

Having covered these five items, I ask members of the committee whether they wish to raise any other item.

At the next meeting of the committee, Mr. Morawski will produce a motion for the contract with Professor Rounthwaite, so that his services may be secured. We don't even know whether he is available at the time we will need him, but that still can be clarified.

What is the other motion?

The Clerk: For the chair to seek authority to travel on Bill C-5.

The Chair: The idea is that we discuss and vote on a motion to seek authority for this committee to travel. Are you ready for this motion now, or do you want to leave it until the next meeting?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I move that we instruct the chair to seek authority to travel.

The Chair: Is there any discussion or comment? Yes, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, could we have at some point an indication of what it would cost if we only travelled to two other provinces, perhaps one in the west and one in the east? Could we have an estimate of that from the clerk, today if possible?

The Chair: Assuming that the budget can be scaled down to cover only two cities and two provinces.... But then you run into trouble, because there are members who will say, how about my province? The clerk can bring to committee any variation on the theme. Right now, the $169,000 applies to Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver.

An hon. member: And up north?

The Chair: No, it is not included.

Mr. Herron.

• 0955

Mr. John Herron: Is there a particular aspect of the new version of Bill C-5 versus Bill C-33 that warrants us travelling now, when we couldn't travel during the era of Bill C-33 for some reason?

The Chair: It would be very difficult to find it. Perhaps Mr. Knutson can answer this question.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think the principle of MPs getting out of Ottawa to see parts of the country is a valid one.

Mr. John Herron: That isn't what you wanted to do last time.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you don't mind, I still have the floor.

Mr. John Herron: Sorry.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Because of the closeness of the numbers in the last Parliament, logistically it was more difficult to travel and to get permission from whips and House leaders. Certainly that was a factor that had to be factored in. In this case, it doesn't factor in as much. But I think it's a valid point that a number of people haven't been to New Brunswick and haven't heard from New Brunswick environmental groups in New Brunswick, so it's a worthwhile exercise.

Mr. John Herron: It was a worthwhile exercise last time, too.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It was.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, Madame Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to oppose the committee's travel, but far be it from me as well to approve—with all the respect I have for Mr. Knutson—the idea that we could just rubber-stamp committee travel. First, before approving trips, I would like to have certain details about the travel in question; what cities will be visited, which groups could we meet in each city. In my opinion, this is an obligation we have to our constituents. I will not systematically and gratuitously approve spending $165,000 to allow the committee to visit five cities without being provided with a minimum of details. I think that is the least we can do if we are to be accountable as Parliamentarians. However, I am not opposed to the committee's travelling as such.

[English]

The Chair: I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Bigras in the sense that it would be wiser, so to say, to take a vote and to make a decision when we have options before us, with some specifics attached to each option. We can do that at the next meeting if you like, or whenever the options are ready, so as to make a better decision, perhaps. Is that fair enough? Fine.

Mr. Mills, then Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fair enough.

Mr. Bob Mills: My only addition would be that you mentioned all very large cities. Some of the most major concerns, of course, are where your landowners are in smaller centres. Certainly the letters and calls we're getting in our office in the west are more centred from B.C.—which could be covered with Vancouver—and Saskatchewan and Alberta, not Winnipeg. So I really question going to Winnipeg and then to Vancouver while missing the other two provinces, because certainly that's where an awful lot of the concern is, not just in Calgary or in Regina, but in some of the smaller centres.

A voice: Like Red Deer.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, like Red Deer.

The Chair: That's an interesting observation, because it could mean that instead of Edmonton, the committee would go to Red Deer, and instead of Halifax, the committee could go to Moncton or whatever. So there's another reason for mulling it over a little bit.

Madame Kraft Sloan, and then we may conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted a point of clarification. We're not taking a vote on this right now, but I think that if we are going to travel, we must consider travelling to the north as well. Certainly if there's an area of Canada that often gets neglected, it's Nunavut or the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. I think it's important to put that on the table as well.

The Chair: We all know what happens. If the committee goes to the eastern Arctic, then there will be complaints in the Yukon and vice versa.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Maybe we should talk about that point. I think Ms. Kraft Sloan is on to a good topic here, because there's a big issue with respect to north of 60 degrees that's applicable to SARA. In terms of mandatory protection of critical habitat and all federal lands within federal jurisdiction, north of 60 becomes a big player in this debate.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: The foreign affairs committee once did a cross-Canada trip, but we split the committee in half. We had group A doing this part of the country and group B did that part of the country. That deals with the time issue, and of course somewhat with the cost.

• 1000

The Chair: That's a good suggestion, too. Are there any other suggestions?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You have to integrate the material.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Fine. This was very helpful.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

The Chair: Sometimes we benefit from these kinds of exchanges.

Are there any other points you wish to raise? If not, we will now adjourn, and we will meet again on Thursday morning.

The meeting is adjourned.