ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 1, 2001

• 0911

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. We have quite an agenda before us this morning, so we had better start, although we cannot make decisions until two more colleagues arrive.

I'd like to bring you up to date on some good developments, which you may want to pass on to colleagues who are not present today. To begin with, the clerk has spoken to Professor Rounthwaite, whose presence at this committee is dear and close to the heart of many, in connection with Bill C-5. The answer is positive. He is available, and he will be starting with us whenever we can set a date, which can only be set once we know the bill is out of the House. Then we'll have to decide whether he should be with us while hearing witnesses or only when we start the clause-by-clause phase of the bill.

Then, as you may recall, there were discussions on possible travel. The clerk has done a lot of work on digging out figures and developing some pros and cons. I would invite him to give us a brief report were it not for the fact that the members who were particularly interested in travel are not present now. So perhaps we will go into that later so as not to have to repeat the substance.

Then there is the reply of the Royal Society, which two days ago seemed to be quite able to handle its own witnesses for this morning. However, it turned out yesterday that they could not appear before us today at such short notice. So I believe the society will be appearing before us the first Tuesday or Thursday after we come back. I would suggest Tuesday would be better because it will interfere less with the committee and it should give them enough time.

The executive summary of the Royal Society report has now been secured for all the members. It looks like this. Perhaps we can pass it around, if you would be so kind, so that Mr. Sorenson and others can see it. Words are not adequate to stress the importance of that report and what it says between the lines and how it presents its findings. So a meeting of this committee with the Royal Society on the findings of that report is highly desirable, because it is all material that makes government relevant and brings government in tune with developing science and technology. I cannot recommend it highly enough. So you can look forward to a very interesting session a week from Tuesday, hopefully.

• 0915

Now we come to today's agenda. This has to be seen within the following framework. In 1995, as a result of a promise made in 1993, this committee passed an amendment to the Auditor General Act to the effect that the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development be established. That office was established in 1995. One of the responsibilities of the commissioner, who reports to Parliament, by the way, is to examine the sustainable development reports as prepared by each government department, but not by crown agencies, unfortunately.

The first wave of reports was produced in 1997. The commissioner commented on the first wave of reports in 1998. The report of 1998 looks like this, in case you want to see it or obtain it through the library. It's entitled Managing for SD, or sustainable development. It contains a number of observations, which are also picked up in Reflections on a Decade of Serving Parliament, which was published last week—I repeat, last week—by the outgoing Auditor General. Definitely, this document is in your offices. It is very much worth reading. It is worth your time, because particularly for new members, like the three of you, it makes it easier for you to bring yourself up to speed without having to read volumes.

Now we come to the tabling two weeks ago by the departments of their second wave of reports. Some of them are over there. That's how they look. That pile contains about 50 pounds of paper. Each department produces its own report. However, don't panic, because the commissioner will comment on this before the end of the year, and it's worth while waiting to read what the commissioner says before getting too excited.

However, there are some reports in that pile that, depending on your particular personal interests, you may want to look at, namely, the one issued by the Department of Natural Resources, because it includes energy; the one by Agriculture; the one by Industry; and perhaps, if you are really good at it—it's always a very trying task—the one by the Treasury Board, so that you can familiarize yourself with some of these areas.

The Auditor General, in his Reflections document, comments on some deficiencies, and that is why it's important to read what he says. Whether or not we love the Auditor General, depending on which side of the House you sit, nevertheless, the comments of the Auditor General must be taken seriously. Some of them in this Reflections document are that there are gaps between commitments made and concrete action taken; there has been a lack of coordination among federal departments and across jurisdictions; and, finally, that Parliament does not receive adequate information. So you will have to examine these claims, and then you will make your own decisions.

• 0920

So this morning I would like to invite you to comment on the work this committee might wish to carry out in connection with this report, in anticipation of the commissioner's report in the fall. So I'm opening this discussion, and when that is over, now that Mr. Knutson has arrived also, and others, we may have an opportunity to discuss travel, as examined in the last two days by our clerk.

Who would like to make an intervention on this issue of the reports tabled two weeks ago?

I forgot another important detail. These reports have been referred to this committee. We are that lucky, you see. They are not being referred to each respective committee for their examination, but because of the way the act is written, they are all referred to this committee. Therefore, we have to decide what to do with the matter.

I'm inviting your comments, suggestions, advice. The clerk says there are many pages of referrals, but they all go to this committee. Can you draw from individual observations, wisdom, suggestions on this other massive task?

The clerk has also distributed another document that is very helpful, entitled Moving Up The Learning Curve, issued by the commissioner in 1999. And he does comment on the first wave, exhibit 2 on page five. Kristen Douglas is drawing our attention to the fact that exhibit 2 is an excerpt from the commissioner's first report. And perhaps an interesting paragraph is 25, the last sentence of which begins “By 15 December 2000, departments are expected”, etc. So the departments have been punctual; they've been on time.

• 0925

I might add that sustainable development, as we all know, is an integration of economic, environmental, and social goals, and that integration, while easy to articulate, is very difficult to implement in practice—this may be one of the reasons why key departments find it very difficult to come to grips with it.

Mr. Reed, please.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, one of the frustrations I've experienced over these seven years has been the fact that while the commissioner can say the federal government is the largest single enterprise in the country, and that may be true, the implementation of a lot of these strategies depends on cooperation from the provinces, and we haven't been getting it, for reasons I can't fathom.

One classic example is seen in the memoranda of understanding signed in 1996 by all the provinces with the federal government to enable the federal government to purchase green power. The only province to give effect to that is Alberta. Ontario, the largest economically, has chosen not to so far—and it's into the fifth year.

The Chair: To purchase green power from whom?

Mr. Julian Reed: Green power from green power generators, whoever they are, and it's happening in Alberta at the present time.

This is a frustration I feel, that somehow or other the learning curve in the provinces is perhaps not as well developed as it is federally—or maybe there are other reasons for not wanting to develop it. I say to my counterparts in the provincial House... There's a poster with a number of geese on it, a nice poster, and a caption underneath—it's been around for quite a few years—that says “Don't just stand there, either lead, follow, or get out of the way.” And very often, in the case of some provinces, all they need do is get out of the way, and a lot of this development potential could be realized. But they're not getting out of the way, and I don't know what it's going to take to get them to get out of the way.

So I express that as a frustration. We've engaged in a great deal of talk and consideration and put it all into wonderful bureaucratic language, but it doesn't seem to have gone very far. We've done things ourselves federally, the greening of the Hill program and some of these things, to try to lead by example, but somehow the message isn't getting out there.

The Chair: Very good. We are attempting to engage in some province-bashing, but it would be better if we stick to the task before us, overcome our frustrations, and look at what can be achieved within the federal jurisdiction. I appreciate your comments, but we need to get some advice here on how to handle this referral to the committee.

Perhaps, however, you want to reflect on it in the next ten days and have a chance to read some of these documents that have suddenly been circulated this morning, so as to buy some time and have this discussion when we come back.

Ms. Douglas is enquiring whether we would want to start with a briefing by the commissioner herself. So you may want to examine that possibility also.

Mr. Knutson.

• 0930

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): The reason I'm not talking is that I'm assuming that we're going to start endangered species within a matter of days. I don't know that it makes a lot of sense to work in anticipation of the report from the commissioner when endangered species may take us a couple of months. It might make sense, on the first day, at the first meeting back, to get a technical briefing on the endangered species bill from the department and to fill our time until we get the official reference from the House.

The Chair: Well, this is good advice provided that the bill makes its way through by tomorrow. If it doesn't, then during the first week that we are back, we will probably have two days during that week without the bill.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Just as we started with some briefings in the last Parliament before the bill passed second reading—because we felt it was going to be passed very soon thereafter—I think we could do the same here. The other alternative is not to meet at all, because I think people are having difficulty turning their minds to other issues when they're getting ready for endangered species.

The Chair: To start that process, it would require a motion for this committee to proceed without having the bill, and a vote and so on.

Mr. Gar Knutson: For discussion purposes, then, I would move that we ask the department for a technical briefing on the bill on the Tuesday after the break.

An hon. member: Do we have quorum, Mr. Chair?

An hon. member: No, there's no quorum yet.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I agree with what you're saying.

The Chair: We need one more member to entertain that motion, but we'll take note of that intervention.

Do we have any other comments?

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Can I get a point of information?

The Chair: Yes, Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: How many members make up a quorum?

The Chair: Nine.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Nine? Okay.

The Chair: I see no enthusiasm in providing some other comments, so this discussion is coming rapidly to an end. I suggest you examine this document that has been circulated, and then we will see what happens to the bill. It may go through tomorrow, in which case we can start the ball rolling for the week when we come back.

The clerk tells me he has integrated in his list of witnesses those suggested by Mr. Mills, and that the effort is therefore—

The Clerk of the Committee: This is ongoing right now. We're still receiving requests also. This afternoon, Kristen and I will be integrating Mr. Mill's list and other requests that we have. Obviously, some are overlapped, but we already had those requests, although this is if the committee decides to go with the panel concept.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: When you say, “if the committee decides” to go for that, what will the committee discuss? I just wonder if that's still up for discussion.

The Clerk: It is if you want to travel.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You don't want to travel?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I'm not saying to not travel. I'm just wondering—

The Chair: That brings up an important thing or key decision, and that's the question of travel, which we could approach at least with the limited quorum now. We can hear the various comments, but before we go into that, I would invite the clerk to give us an overview of the pros and cons of travelling.

Madam Redman, you wanted the floor.

• 0935

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to speak specifically of the panels. I haven't seen the list. I know reference has been made to overlaps, but who decides if associations are roughly equal to other associations? Is that something we do as a committee?

The Chair: Yes, when it is ready, you will receive the final possible lists at the first opportunity, and also a list of those who have been sorted out, so that you may decide whether the work corresponds with your evaluation of the various groups that have come forward. So the decision on the final list will be made by this committee.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If I could just throw two things out to the committee for consideration, this bill has received seven years' public debate. It's highly interesting to many groups in Canada, and indeed to most Canadians, as we've seen from some of the polling.

There are two things that I would suggest that perhaps we may want to look at as a committee. One is that we listen to national organizations or provincial, but maybe not both, unless there's a compelling reason to do so.

The other thing I would suggest is that there are a lot of different groups that have different focuses on pieces of this bill. I would really encourage this committee to consider having integrated panels so that we're not listening to all of the ranchers at one time and we're not listening at another time to all of the environmental groups. Perhaps the panels should be mixed up so that we get those voices at the table talking to each other and hearing each other's views. It's not that they're necessarily competing, but they may focus on different pieces of the bill. I think that leads to a much more fruitful discussion and to much more thought-provoking questions from committee members. I would ask that this be taken under advisement when we look at forming the panels.

The Chair: Fine, thank you. That's good advice, and I'm sure it will be followed.

With that process going on, can we now revisit the issue of travelling and perhaps hear from the clerk what his experience is with the pros and cons of that particular proposition.

The Clerk: As you know, travel has become quite expensive. Airfare, hotels, and everything else have gone up in the past few years. I presume the whole committee wants to travel if we go on Bill C-5. I made an estimate based on just taking ten members, five from the government and five from the opposition, doing five cities. I just picked five cities at random, east to west, Halifax to Vancouver, and it would cost $169,000.

Now, if you stayed here in Ottawa, obviously you would have to bring the witnesses in. You would have to pay for some of them, but for some you wouldn't have to. I would estimate it would probably be cheaper than $169,000.

If you travelled and you went on the panel concept and, as Mrs. Redman said, if you had people sitting in the same blocks—like getting the cattle ranchers all together—and you were in Montreal, you would still have to bring these people in from across the country to be on this panel, so you would basically be doubling your expense.

There was other talk of splitting up the committee. Well, that also would double the expense, because it would be like sending two committees on the road.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: What you're doing, then, is subtracting the cost of bringing the witnesses and so on here from $169,000. Did you give the net on that?

The Clerk: No, I didn't, because I don't know how many witnesses we're going to have to pay for and how many are going to come.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, but that would have to be factored in.

The Clerk: Yes, but I think it would be cheaper.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Indeed, but I guess what I'm saying is that it's not $169,000.

The Clerk: No.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's $169,000 less the cost of... Of course, you're going to have both. In the event that we travel, we'll be travelling and we'd still be seeing people here.

The Clerk: Yes, we still have to pay witnesses, especially if you're going with panels. If you're thinking of, say, environmental groups, well, there are environmental groups right across the country. If you install yourself in Calgary, for example, you still have to bring the ones from the east to Calgary, so you're still paying for that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm sorry. We would have to bring the ones from the east to Calgary?

The Clerk: Yes. Suppose you had a panel of environmental groups. You want a cross-section of groups from across the country, don't you?

An hon. member: No.

• 0940

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I don't think you would do that. When you're in Calgary, you're going to see Albertans.

The Clerk: So you're just going to see the groups from Calgary, then.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, and when you're in Halifax, you're going to see Nova Scotians.

The Clerk: Let's take academics. They're spread out across the country. Would you sit in Calgary and just take the academics from Calgary?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Sure. Why would you take Quebeckers? You're there to see the local—

The Clerk: All right. It would probably be feasible if you're going to do it that way.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: My other concern is that when we're looking at a bill as heavily impacted by the rural dimension as this bill is, I'm not sure that a five-city tour would be as...

The Chair: On Tuesday, Ms. Carroll, the discussion was about visiting small communities as an alternative to the usual practice of visiting large centres. For instance, in the case of Alberta it would mean visiting Red Deer instead of Calgary; in the case of Halifax it would mean visiting Moncton instead of Halifax; and so on. That was part of the dynamics of the discussion on Tuesday. Alternatives were brought up.

Please continue.

The Clerk: If you did that, it would probably cost a little more. You'd have to use ground transportation. Airplane transportation into some of these places is not available, so you'd have to bus around to the outskirts. It wouldn't make that much difference. It wouldn't add a big burden. It could be done. The other thing is time. It would take a little more time to get to the smaller centres.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't want to say that the money is irrelevant, but it's secondary. It's an important factor, but it's still a secondary factor. I think a bigger issue is whether people think it's worth their time.

We didn't travel much in the last Parliament because of the slim majority and the issue of getting permission from the whips, but from 1993 to 1997 I travelled with the committee on this topic, and I thought it was a worthwhile experience. Everyone may not have the same view. You spend a day in Vancouver and hear from all the B.C. groups, and you get a perspective. Jack what's-his-name yells at you in Vancouver and comes and yells at you again in Ottawa, and you get a... What's his last name, do you remember?

A voice: It's Munro.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, Jack Munro. He has gone now, anyway, but I'm sure there's a whole bunch of other people there.

It's a worthwhile experience from my point of view. I don't know how to put it any better than that. You get a better feel for the place and for the people who are talking to you. You talk to them closer to their home environs, and I think it changes the psychology of their testimony. But all of that is purely subjective. Especially for new members, if you've never been across the country, here's an opportunity, and it's worth it. I think you're a better parliamentarian for the experience.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Another perspective we have to take into account if we're going to travel—and I'm suggesting we should—is the attention we're likely to get from the media if we move outside of Ottawa and outside of the major cities.

To follow up on Mrs. Redman's comments, the reality is there's some significant opposition to this legislation in the farming communities, and I think we need to target them in particular. I'm hearing all kinds of misinformation about this legislation in those communities. I don't want to get into the merits of the legislation. They might validly have some concerns about this legislation doing what it's supposed to do, but let me leave that aside for a minute. The reality is there's a lot of misinformation out there, and this is an opportunity for us to be able to get more correct information into those communities that seem to be the most opposed to this legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mrs. Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you. I would like to follow up on Ms. Carroll's and Mr. Comartin's comments. I agree that it would seem a lot more logical to avoid the historic big centres and go to the small towns and perhaps north of 60 and hear from those groups.

• 0945

I just want to clarify my earlier comment because I'm not quite sure the clerk understood me. My sense was that we shouldn't have just the non-governmental groups but that we should indeed go to an area and also hear from the ranchers and the environmentalists, all on the same panel, and listen to what they have to say as well as allow them to hear what each other thinks.

Further to Mr. Knutson's comment, if Jack Whoever is yelling at us in Vancouver, I would trust we wouldn't then ask him to come to Ottawa to go on a similar rant here. I would trust that opportunity would be given to as broad a number of people as possible.

The only other concern I'd like to express is that I would assume travel would then take the place of some of the panel time in Ottawa so that this wouldn't necessarily protract our hearings. We would do the same number of hearings but in a different way. So I would seek clarification that this wouldn't necessarily prolong the process.

The Clerk: It would. It would involve a lot of organization.

The Chair: It certainly would prolong the process. There's no doubt about that.

Also, keep in mind, as a political observation, that the closer you stay to the large urban centres, the more likely there is to be support for the bill, and the more you move away from the large urban centres, the more likely it is that opposition to the bill will be encountered. It will be a pattern quite similar to the gun control legislation. So keep in mind that the choice of the itinerary is going to be extremely important in terms of the outcome of the hearings and the impact the hearings will have on the members of this committee. That is just a political observation, which may be out of place for the chair to make.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Do you want a notice of motion for a week from now asking... Mr. Bigras is not here. He wanted more details.

The Chair: Yes, it would be helpful if there were a notice of motion so that at the first meeting a good discussion can take place along with Mr. Mills and the others who are not here today, with the details of the travel on paper, which members can receive perhaps the day before.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I move that we agree in principle to travel and that we instruct the clerk to come up with a proposed plan, which would be subject to the final approval of the committee.

The Clerk: I have a budget right now for five major centres. I'll send it today electronically to all the members.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's for $169,000.

The Clerk: That's right. I have a copy right here. Would you like to see it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, I'll just move that—

The Chair: Would you be agreeable to dropping making an agreement on travel today and just put the intent of making a decision on whether to travel for the next meeting, rather than binding this committee too soon?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I move that we make a decision on travelling at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

The Chair: And that the clerk be requested to prepare a budget for travelling, including north of 60.

The Clerk: Do you mean small centres or major centres?

The Chair: The two options, the small and the major.

Keep in mind that if the committee goes to Vancouver, it will hear predominantly a red theme. If it goes to Prince George, it will hear a theme that is predominantly blue, for lack of other colours, or whatever. So keep in mind that the choice of the locations is going to have quite an effect on the themes we will be picking up. There are political implications.

Madame Carroll.

• 0950

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I agree with your suggestion, and with Mr. Knutson's compliance, that we don't make a decision on this today or bind the committee on this today, for the reasons that have been shared and those that have not.

In terms of the clerk's comment earlier that whether we travel or not will impact on the format of how we see witnesses, I didn't even think of that. Now that I have had an opportunity to think, I think it's something we need to ponder a bit, so I would support that we just hold off on this decision to bind us on travel and wait until the rest of the members are here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Travelling is a lot of work. It's a lot of work for the clerk. It's a big interruption to your personal life. If people are ambivalent about it—and I seem to be the only one saying, yeah, let's do it—then I suggest that we decide not to go. But I think we should make up our minds on a more fundamental issue.

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, then Madame Carroll.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Actually, I got on this committee, and this is the first time I've ever been to committee.

The Chair: Well, you're welcome.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I thank you for that.

I'm not sure what Mr. Mills has talked about on travel in the past, but just for clarification for myself, it would seem as though we're talking about travel for the year. Is that correct, or is it just for Bill C-5?

The Chair: You're correct.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: So is it the responsibility of this committee to go out to hear from witnesses at these centres in regard to Bill C-5, or is it to go out to explain Bill C-5 to them so that they would...

An hon. member: It's to hear them.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It's to hear them.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The responsibility of this committee is to produce the best endangered species act we can, by whatever means we choose to do so.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Then without talking to Mr. Mills, I would suggest it's incumbent upon us to travel, to go where those ranchers are.

Mr. Gar Knutson: As opposed to flying the ranchers in.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, as opposed to bringing them in here. I don't think you'd get the response, would you?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, you pay.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, I know, but would you get the response that you would by going out there?

The Chair: Yes, you do.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: You do?

The Chair: Yes, it has worked in the past. Of course, it's a different environment being out there or being here. But people do come when invited. The associations are very keen, actually.

The Clerk: They come even when they're not invited.

The Chair: Yes, as Mr. Morawski underlines, they come even when they're not asked.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'm sure.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: There's been enough said, I think.

The Chair: All right, then. We have this notice of motion by Mr. Knutson. Could you read it, please?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I didn't even write it out. It basically says that travel plans should be put on hold until the next meeting and that travel discussions take place at the next meeting.

The Chair: There will be discussions at the next meeting, when there will be sufficient documentation for the members to examine, with options.

The Clerk: I've already given you the options for the five major cities. In order for me to draft up a budget for small centres, I have to know where you want to go.

An hon. member: Check for Nova Scotia.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd also suggest that if there's no clear consensus by the end of the next meeting, we just drop it and stay in Ottawa.

The Clerk: I can give you a ballpark figure, but I can tell you it will obviously be more expensive than $169,000 to go to the smaller centres, because you're adding ground transportation in there, as well as other things.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Knutson made an excellent point, and he ought not to retreat at this time. That is, cost is certainly a factor in the work of any committee, but it is not the first priority. The first priority is to produce the best public policy we can produce. So I think we have wisely elected—or you have wisely elected—along with the chair's advice, to just put this decision off. I don't think that necessarily reflects ambivalence on the part of your colleagues.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

The Chair: All right, thank you for this exchange. This is very helpful guidance.

Are there any other items that the members wish to raise in the course of this meeting? As an item not discussed, we have the reports by the department, resulting from the commissioner's mandate. We have discussed the issue of travel. That exhausts the substance of this particular meeting.

• 0955

Yes, Madame Scherrer—and welcome to the committee, by the way.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you. This is my first committee and I'm perhaps having a little difficulty in following what is being said, but I would like to comment on the issue of travelling.

We have talked a lot about the issue of cost, but I think that we should talk more about the underlying goal of travelling. I think that this goal is probably to meet as many groups as possible and to make sure that when we table the bill we will know exactly what we're talking about because we will have looked at all aspects of this issue. In this way, when the bill is tabled in the House of Commons we will feel that we have a comprehensive understanding of the situation.

I don't think that we should get bogged down in the issue of costs. If I am asked to choose an option, and I'm told that one option costs $169,000, I can't make that choice until I know what the other option will cost. At the moment, we are talking about an option that costs $169,000 and another option which might cost less. I can't just say that because the other option costs less that I'm going to choose that one. I really need to be told that, for example, option number 1 costs $169,000 whereas option number 2 costs $145,000. I have to know the cost of both options so that I can make my choice. I don't want to be told that travelling to major urban centres will cost $169,000 and that travelling to smaller locations will cost less money. That doesn't allow me to make a choice. If we have to make a decision based on cost, I want to know that option one will cost $169,000 and that option two, for example, will cost $175,000. I can't make a choice between $169,000 and an unknown figure. I need to have the cost of both options.

Secondly, I would like to come back to the comments made by my colleague. He said that our goal is to meet groups and to gain as much information as possible. I think that it is important to do this. If our objective is to use this opportunity to show people that we are keen to find out as much information in the field as possible and to make sure that we have met with all the groups, I would plump for travelling to major urban centres. This option would allow us to use the media to show people that we went out into the field and that we are in a position to get our message across. We really have to go to as many places as possible and make sure that our visit does not go unnoticed and that it is highly publicized. We have to use our visit to put across our point of view and to correct any misinformation that there might be.

Consequently, I personally would opt to allow the committee to travel, even if bringing witnesses here is less expensive. If I am in a position to compare the cost of two options, this would allow me to justify my decision. I would have no problem with that. I can't conceive that it will take us five meetings to decide whether we are going to travel or not. Our work will never get done. However, if we are going to make a decision with regard to this bill and it takes us forward, well, that's great. In that case, let's get going and let's find out how much we are going to spend, either $169,000 or another figure. At the end of the day, we have to be able to back up our decision.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments. We have noted what you've said and we will endeavour to put figures to the various options.

[English]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I just want to make sure that I have a choice between something and something else, not just one amount of money and then something else.

[Translation]

The Chair: Agreed.

[English]

The Clerk: Can I answer on the costs for bringing the witnesses in?

The Chair: Yes, please.

[Translation]

The Clerk: It is very difficult to estimate how much it would cost to bring the witnesses here until we know which witnesses we are going to invite and which of them will want us to pay their expenses. We will not have to pay for all the witnesses because some of them work for government, etc. Consequently, it's difficult for me to give you a figure on that issue. I have been clerk here for several years and I would say that in the majority of cases, it is cheaper to bring the witnesses here to Ottawa.

[English]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Okay, that was just to make the point that I cannot choose between $169,000 and something else.

[Translation]

I have the choice of choosing or not choosing.

[English]

when I know $169,000 and what the other amount of money is.

[Translation]

You can't choose between $169,000 and an unknown figure.

[English]

The Clerk: That's a good point.

The Chair: That's all right, but let's not get hung up on the importance of figures, because the cost of democracy is what it is. There are greater considerations than just money here. This is what is really on the table before us, and it will not be easy to make a choice. But let's not be blinded only by the importance of numbers. However, we will have some numbers. We will attach values to the numbers, as well, and I'm sure we'll have a good discussion again, and hopefully we'll make the right decision.

• 1000

[Translation]

Yes.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Perhaps the first thing to do would be to decide whether or not we are going to travel. Then, we could look at the cost involved. This would put us in a position to justify our decision to travel or to have witnesses come to Ottawa. Then, we could discuss the costs related to travelling. However, first of all, we have to decide whether we're going to travel or not.

The Chair: When we discussed this issue for the first time last Tuesday, some of you said that we couldn't make a decision until we had the figures and the total cost of both options. Consequently, we will continue our discussion along the same lines.

[English]

Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.