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, September 18, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning to you all. It's nice to see you again after a very short summer.

Today we have before us, as is customary, a work plan to discuss. I think it's always useful to have an overview of the options ahead of us.

• 0910

The clerk, following up on a conversation we had, has prepared a list of items to provide our discussion with at least a piece of paper as background, so to speak. The list is quite comprehensive but not complete, because some unfinished business ought to be added to this list in the form of a discussion we had a few months ago on the Royal Society report, in February, when a subcommittee was formed.

As well, on another topic that ought to be added to the last item, to discuss or to learn about Canada's participation at Rio Plus 10, I would suggest that we also add a session that would bring the committee up to date on the conclusion of COP-6 in Bonn, which was actually covered quite extensively by the media, and a discussion at the same time on COP-7, which is scheduled to take place in a place called Marrakesh. I don't know where it is, but it's somewhere in northwest Africa, very close to the coast. It's next door to Casablanca. You remember the famous movie. It's scheduled to take place from October 29 to November 9. Considering the large participation of Canadian parliamentarians at COP-6, it might be desirable for you to be aware that there is another opportunity in Marrakesh at the end of October that you may want to take advantage of—if, of course, the agenda is sufficiently interesting and stimulating.

As you must have noticed—and I apologize if my monologue lasts more than the usual three minutes—on this list there are two urgent legislative items. One is the well-known Bill C-5 and the other is Bill C-19. Then there is the October 2 report of our commissioner, as formed by the committee by way of legislation in 1994. You will have received a letter from the clerk and from me, or one of the two—I remember signing a letter last week—informing you about the fact that on October 2 there will be an opportunity to review the report before it is even issued to the media. Then there will be a lock-up between roughly eight and ten o'clock, usually in the railway committee room or somewhere in Centre Block.

That meeting would offer you a tremendous opportunity to get insight into the commissioner's report and to ask questions on almost a one-to-one basis. It's a very informal kind of gathering. It's not a committee meeting at all, for those of you who have never had that opportunity before. The commissioner and her assistants are in the same room, and you can examine and analyze in depth any part of the report that you wish to explore further.

• 0915

So that is a red-letter day, October 2. It's an event that is usually followed by horrific headlines the next day. The report usually brings out all the things that have gone wrong and offers therefore a delightful day for the official opposition and for other opposition parties who wish to participate in cannibalizing the government. It's an event you may want to watch very closely.

That's my introduction to the work plan before you. We now have time to discuss it, to comment on it, and to put forward thoughts, keeping in mind of course that we have a legislative commitment that leaves us very little time.

The minister has indicated his desire to appear before this committee on October 3. The date of October 2 is taken by the commissioner's report. Next week is fairly free, and it is during that time, on Tuesday, that we could hold a meeting with officials on Rio Plus 10, if you agree. On Thursday we could have a meeting on COP-7, with a briefing on the upcoming climate change conference in Marrakesh on Wednesday or Thursday.

That said, I apologize for the long monologue. The floor is open. Who would like to go first?

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think utilizing our time next week on Rio Plus 10 and COP-7 would be a very good idea. I'm very supportive of that. I think it's important that parliamentarians have an opportunity to engage in the Rio Plus 10 process as soon as possible.

I have had some discussion with both Environment Canada officials and our new ambassador on the environment with regard to Rio Plus 10, and I just have to underscore the importance of getting a quick briefing so that we can participate in that process, because a number of important issues need to be attended to.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Savoy.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR Coalition): I don't know which one I have a preference for doing first, the next Conference of the Parties or Rio Plus 10, but I would like to remind the chair, as catalyst of the event, that on September 25 we have an opportunity to have a myriad of NGOs who are going to be on the Hill, along with other stakeholders, with respect to pesticides legislation. The members of Parliament will be here on Tuesday. It will be a chance for the NGOs to comment—actually, the very first time they would have a chance to comment—with respect to the all-party report we had done. Why would we not want to afford them a substantive way, with respect to Parliament, to make commentary with respect to the report in addition to the activities you have planned for later on that day? Do that on Tuesday.

It's a good idea, yes?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's great.

The Chair: Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Not being familiar with the committee process, as a rookie in this environment, I see the work plan we have in front of us and I respect that. But I think one of the most pressing issues right now in Canada is water quality, and it's something we should be looking at.

I don't know the format, and I don't know the process to look at it, but there has to be some method for us as an environment committee to look at the water quality situation in Canada, to look at federal responsibilities, at research and development efforts. Certainly a strong area for us as a federal government is the National Water Research Institute. Having worked in the water quality sector for 11 to 12 years as an engineer, I personally feel we have to put this on the forefront of our agenda. It's also the feedback I'm getting from people in the industry and within my riding.

As to whether this is the proper process at committee, I'd like to have some guidance from the chair and from any other committee members.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron, then Mr. Mills.

Mr. John Herron: I guess I would comment that I think Mr. Savoy is dead on the mark. When the Progressive Conservatives tabled in the House their motion with respect to national drinking water standards, Andy was one of the first persons who wanted to support it, even prior to the amendment we had tabled.

• 0920

I think we have a moral obligation here in that the House of Commons expressed its will very clearly last May, with the vast majority of parliamentarians asking for leadership from the federal government on this particular issue. To date we haven't seen anything. To be fair to the government, that was only at the end of the last session, but I think we can put our shoulder to the wheel ourselves and start engaging in this topic to push this.

A debate can be made that, as I've always believed, this is a matter of health, which would put it under the purview of the Standing Committee on Health, or maybe a joint committee. Clearly, if this committee wants to study the issue surrounding the federal role and leadership in national drinking water standards, you have wholehearted support from the Progressive Conservative coalition with the DRC.

The Chair: If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Herron, there is a bill in the Senate, by Senator Grafstein, on water standards.

Mr. John Herron: That's right.

The Chair: It's been making its way through the system. Maybe that is the one we should focus on once it comes into the House, unless it goes, as you say, to the health committee.

Mr. John Herron: I have one tabled next week as well, on the same issue.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): When it comes to water, I think it's a lot bigger than just water quality. I think we need to talk about our aquifers, and we need to talk about the whole water situation. It's becoming kind of obvious, for instance, that in British Columbia, on the border, Washington State plans to use Canadian aquifers for water. Although it will come from wells, it'll be right on the border. The aquifers are located in Canada, but the water is going to be tapped by the U.S.

I think that's just the beginning of what's been going on. We say we don't export water, but we really are exporting a lot of water in different forms. To my knowledge, I don't think we've been trying to find an accurate mapping of our aquifers, where they're at, or an inventory, or what we might do if we start inter-basin transferring of water. All of those issues have really never been dealt with from a Canadian perspective.

So I think water should be much broader than just the health issue or the quality issue. It should go right to the whole issue. I think this committee would be perfect to do that.

The Chair: The inventory issue has been a subject of discussion between the provinces and others as to which level of government is responsible for producing it. It's certainly a very sore and important point, no doubt.

Mr. Bob Mills: Perhaps I can add just one other point. With varying messages about the ratification of Kyoto coming to Parliament sometime in the next year, hopefully we will broaden the COP-7 discussion to really talk about what it would mean to ratify, the implications of the U.S. and Mexico not ratifying, and the economics of that whole thing. Again, that's a huge subject that should be dealt with by government.

The Chair: I'm glad you're raising this point, because I forgot in my introduction to mention the fact that after the conclusion of the Bonn meeting, COP-6, I made contact with the chair of the environment and public works committee in Washington, Senator Jeffords, the Republican senator from Maine who went over to the Democrats, and inquired whether he would be interested in a joint meeting between the two committees. His answer was very favourable. He asked whether I would put the proposal on paper, which I did. That was toward the end of July.

So far, silence. Right now Washington has other thoughts in mind, although we did follow up that letter before the tragedy of September 11. When things calm down, because of the significance in relation to climate change and the absence of the U.S.A., I think a meeting with them would be very helpful. You have pointed in that direction already.

• 0925

Perhaps in a week or two we'll try to make contact again and see whether we can meet. I got the impression that he would be receptive, first of all, if we were to go to Washington, which is somehow understandable, and that he would be looking favourably at something at the end of the year or at the beginning of the new year.

I would certainly welcome your comments on this possibility of a joint meeting.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have three points. Some are clarification and some are offering some clarification.

Among the items for study I notice two references to the supplementary estimates and the main estimates. I'm wondering if that's purely for discussion purposes, because it was my understanding that after 45 days of being tabled in the House, they were deemed adopted. So I'm assuming that would just be for our discussion, entre nous, because they've been deemed adopted by the House.

The Chair: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would offer a suggestion for those of us who weren't at the COP meeting in Bonn, COP-6.5 or whatever it was people were calling it. I attended an outstanding presentation by some environment officials who actually were at the negotiating table. It might be really worthwhile to have them come in and to act as a springboard. They did an excellent job, I think, of taking diverse, complex issues and bringing them down to the bottom line. I know that many people who weren't even involved in the environment found it highly engaging. So that may be a place to start.

I know Mr. Herron has a role to play on Dennis Mills' water committee, but I'm wondering, through you, how that relates to this committee. I certainly would agree with the comments, just on a very personal basis, that air and water were two subjects I heard about constantly in my riding all summer, but I'm wondering, through you to Mr. Herron, how the Dennis Mills committee dovetails with this or the work this committee might do, or if indeed it does.

The Chair: Thank you.

Would you like to reply or would you like to let Madame Kraft Sloan go ahead while you ponder your profound reply?

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to go ahead first.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Go ahead.

Mr. John Herron: My comment is that I think Dennis is extremely sincere in terms of what he wants to do now with this. The fact is, it's not Dennis' committee yet. This has to be struck by the House leaders, and a chair has to be nominated. That became a stickling point because it was a predetermined process.

So where you say that the intent of the House leader is to strike a committee, where Dennis has expressed a very genuine effort to make a contribution, I think it's something we should do. That may be a more appropriate place to go and do it. I think we should maybe hold our powder for a moment and have that conversation perhaps a little later—next week, max.

In short order, if this is an immediate steering, if this is the first chance for us to get a feel for where the committee is, I'd just like to say that we do the pesticide issue on Tuesday and then we can take it from there.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad Mr. Herron had his opportunity to go first and to clarify a few things here.

Mr. John Herron: You told me to.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. That's very good.

First of all, we have a discussion about next week, which I think we should probably deal with before we get into longer-term discussions. I agree with Mr. Herron's idea that if we have an opportunity to have a wide variety of environment and health groups, perhaps we would want to revisit the pesticide issue and hear their comments with regard to the committee report.

We also are expecting the new Pest Control Products Act, amending the old act, to come into the House shortly. It's a very topical issue, particularly for members of this committee. So I would support that. I would like to continue to push for a session on Rio Plus 10, because there is a number of issues we need to be apprised of. This might be our only opportunity as a committee because of our legislative agenda.

• 0930

If you would want to organize a session, Mr. Chair, perhaps we could do Rio Plus 10 on Wednesday and the COP session on Thursday.

You had mentioned that members went to Bonn. I don't know who went, but I was told I could go if I paid my own way. With two children in university, I find it rather expensive to pay my own way on government business. I would underscore the importance of parliamentarians' participation, but I really don't think we should be footing the bill. It is the Government of Canada, after all.

The other point I wanted to make on the water issue is that, as Madame Redman and Mr. Herron have pointed out, there has been a push by the government to put forward a committee to take a look at water. I would suggest that the issue of water is a very important issue for this country and it's also a very complex issue. A lot of different facets are involved. Water quality and water quantity are interconnected. I would suggest that there is a need for a comprehensive study that would probably take at least a year.

Mr. Chair, it's my understanding—and this is only hearsay, so I'm not pointing any fingers—that the opposition members have been dragging their feet. Perhaps, as Mr. Herron pointed out, there was some concern around the process of identifying the chair. Well, there is an opportunity to go ahead with that particular committee, and members who have that kind of interest can be involved. I would suggest that the environment committee has a lot on its legislative agenda that we cannot avoid, and we would not be able to give adequate attention and time to that particular issue.

The Chair: Thank you. Might I add also that in early 1984 the government of the day launched a commission on water. The Pearse report was produced in 1986 by the same Peter Pearse who appeared before this committee on compensation in connection with Bill C-5. The recommendations contained in that report are still to be dealt with. The very thoughtful work and policy recommendations certainly deserve to be examined and decided upon by any government. I think this is material that members might want to keep in mind for question period, because there is work that has been done and that is still waiting for action.

I agree with Madame Kraft Sloan's conclusion, of course, on the immensity of the task itself. Keep in mind that water will require some degree of input on the part of several committees, including agriculture, health, which has already been mentioned, industry, and the environment, just to name a few. It is no doubt a major undertaking from a parliamentary point of view. This is why the proposal to set up a special committee for it is so appealing, because that committee would be able to invite witnesses from a variety of departments and deal with that subject in depth, in the manner that Mr. Mills, for instance, also indicated—namely, dealing also not only with quality but also with aquifers, inventory, and so on.

I think Madame Redman is next.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I would just like a little clarification around the pesticide issue. I'm wondering if we're going to focus on how pesticides relate to environment or if it's specifically on human health, in which case perhaps a joint meeting with health might be appropriate.

Mr. John Herron: There are two things.

The Chair: What Mr. Herron in essence is saying is that there is an event planned for that afternoon and evening. There will be exhibits in room 200, so why not take advantage of that by also holding a meeting nearby between those who participate and members of this committee. As well, as Madame Kraft Sloan has suggested, we'll endeavour to hold a meeting that afternoon in this room, which will be not too far, and give an opportunity for the participants to be heard.

• 0935

As to COP-7 in Rio, as it has been suggested, yes, that could be arranged, one on Wednesday and the other one on Thursday, so that we have a good understanding, or a better understanding, as to what the preparatory work is all about.

Next we have Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I'd like to focus for a moment on the issue of water quality.

I too am new to this committee. It was my impression that our focus was to be priority issues. To my mind, the subject that Andy just raised is a pressing issue for all of our ridings. Given the events that transpired over this past year, I don't think we can overlook this reality.

I realize that pesticides are a pressing concern and I also know that food-related issues are important as well. However, I believe that water quality continues to be the most pressing issue in every single riding. I can understand the desire to examine this issue separately or to strike a special committee for this purpose, but it was my impression that the Environment Committee has to make some choices and set out its agenda based on priority concerns.

I support Andy's position. As far as I'm concerned, water quality remains a priority. I don't want to exclude other subjects, but I think we should be able to set our priorities, adjust our focus and lay down our fall agenda, since we've only just resumed sitting.

The Chair: You're right. This is certainly a priority issue. I will consult with other committee chairs to get a better understanding of the work plan and of how we should proceed. This is a complex issue and a range of initiatives are being taken. It's important to understand the dynamics at work here. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: On the water issue, I just wanted to clarify that we must involve the provinces right from the start.

Just to correct something Madam Kraft Sloan said, that the opposition was dragging its feet, we've indicated total support for Dennis' program. We've been onside all along and have encouraged it. We even wrote letters to the Prime Minister, encouraging him to go ahead with it. So when you say opposition, do not include us.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Absolutely. Thank you so much.

The Chair: Except those in this room.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Joe Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was hiding here, Mr. Knutson, actually to avoid that, but we are to blame, and for good reason.

With regard to scheduling, we have to get SARA done. We have to finish SARA, in terms of prioritizing. I'm not hearing any discussion about that. I look at what has to be done in terms of the number of amendments. The last list I saw there must have been close to a hundred. The clause-by-clause of SARA is going to take us I don't know how many meetings to get through.

Mr. John Herron: You mean months.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are we going to be dictated by the government that we have to finish it in a short period of time? I get the sense from the minister that we're not. At least those are his public pronouncements. But yes, we have probably a good month of meetings to get through SARA. So if I can ask the committee to focus its attention on that, can we schedule that and plan for when we're going to finish so that we can report back?

With regard to the water issue, I plead guilty. We have been utterly opposed to Mr. Mills being chair of that, for a number of reasons—our party has been; we're the ones holding it up. We continue to do that.

I do want to point out that if we're going to deal with water...I don't know if the rest of the committee is aware, but there is a bill that cleared foreign affairs on transboundary water, which is at this point the government's position dealing with the bulk export, which is one of the major issues.

Mr. Mills' point is well taken. The aquifers weren't even addressed in that respect.

• 0940

In addition to that, in terms of dealing with that part of the water problem, the whole issue of the provincial role is crucial, because the government strategy at this point is...other than the transboundary water act and the amendments that will bring to the treaty, the rest of the responsibility is being dumped on them to deal with the issue of bulk export under NAFTA.

So in any discussion of water, foreign affairs has to be involved as well as one other committee. It seems to me that it is logical to have an ad hoc committee rather than one of the standing committees because none of the standing committees has a broad enough jurisdiction to be able to deal with that issue.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, we're into the whole issue of privatization of the system. If you talk to the municipalities anywhere in this country, they're frustrated and in fact terrified of how they're going to deal with water quality, given some of the impositions that are being dumped on them from the provinces, and that is flowing down from the federal government. They have a gross inability to deal with the water quality issue, from a financial standpoint, and they're looking at privatizing all over the place. That's another issue that has to be addressed, so industry and trade have to be involved.

So it's an ad hoc committee. There isn't just one committee that can deal with all of the issues that affect the issue of water in this country.

Having said that, back to whether we can prioritize around SARA. I guess the negotiations will continue on about an ad hoc committee on water. This committee isn't broad enough to deal with it.

The Chair: Thank you. What you have said is very helpful.

The situation with amendments, I'm told, is the following. Until now there have been some 89 amendments produced by the official opposition, one amendment that was produced yesterday by a Liberal member, and then a balance of some 60 amendments, I'm told, from the other parties. So we are roughly around 150, and I understand there are some amendments that are of substance—of considerable substance—while the others may be of a housekeeping nature. That is all I can report to you at the present time.

As to Bill C-5, before you came into the room, Mr. Comartin, the point was made that that is our top priority—definitely it is—and that we have a window next week only because of the fact that the minister will appear on October 3. So we will take advantage of that. But as soon as the minister has appeared, the clause-by-clause will start. Your estimate of one month may be accurate. It could be longer than one month. It will depend on how the amendments are organized and the discussions around them. We could easily imagine that we could finish—well, let's be bold and perhaps regret it—by mid-November, that we can conclude our work in a month and a half. But there is a week off in October, as you know, and there is a week off in November, so it may be touch and go. We don't know.

Anyway, let's hope that we can have some intensive frequent meetings so that we can get that through.

Then of course we have Bill C-19 staring at us, which is waiting. It's not an earthshaking bill, as far as I understand it, so it will not be one that will absorb a considerable amount of time, although I may be wrong. All these predictions are to be tested by reality. But we could finish Bill C-19, with some luck...probably not in December, but certainly in the early part of the year. Then of course we can face the universe again and decide.

There is a very important royal commission report, as you know, which we just nibbled very delicately at the edges, and if we go into that we would be in it and with it for many, many months. If we don't take that route, but we go the water route, the same can be said of that.

• 0945

So we have some difficult choices ahead.

Madame Kraft Sloan and Mr. Savoy.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was essentially going to repeat what you just said, that we do have a number of items on our legislative agenda. I also think that if we are interested in pursuing a study, the Royal Society report on biotechnology is an important one for us to pursue because the report itself is an extra-parliamentary report. It did not come into Parliament. The results and recommendations of that report have not been properly addressed.

Probably next to the water issue there isn't an issue that's first on Canadians' minds, other than genetically modified food products. Canadians are very concerned about this.

I think the report itself, in many respects, speaks to the entire regulatory process and risk assessment process that we undertake as a government. I think one of the most important things that came out of the pesticide review was the whole issue of risk assessment.

So not only does it give us an opportunity to look at the biotechnology issue, but it gives us an opportunity to look at risk assessment itself, which is fundamental to the protection of the natural environment and human health.

The Chair: Of course you have to add to that that once you go into the Royal Society report you have to go into the government ministerial committee report that came out two weeks ago.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, exactly, which is the new CBAC report, the first phase. I have already begun some research with that, and there are some very troubling statements that have been put forward in that. As we know, the government is not merely a regulator but a promoter of biotechnology. So there's a huge conflict inherent in the process.

In 1995, when the committee was in the throes of writing the CEPA review, while we were waiting for our support from the library research staff, we undertook a short study on biotechnology. All of the things we were told in 1995 have come to pass in terms of the concerns that were raised by the Royal Society.

There's a huge misunderstanding about what the Royal Society report has said. There's only one line that's ever quoted by government types, promoters of biotechnology, which is an inaccurate quote at best. It's not even a recommendation; it's just a one-off line in the report itself. All of the other recommendations are very important recommendations if we're going to properly regulate genetically modified organisms as well as looking at the risk assessment process, which really is the thing that holds all of our decision-making together.

So it would be a marvellous opportunity to bring this report into Parliament and have a good discussion and have the government answer some questions that need to be answered, which are left unanswered right now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I support Dennis Mills' committee, no question. I've spoken with Dennis. I'd be happy to serve on it, and I support him as chair on the committee. But it's been a year. Canadians are looking for a lead on the water file. We haven't been able to offer that. I'm getting pressure as a member of the environment committee. People are saying, “Well, what do you do up there? Water's the most pressing issue in Canada. You people aren't dealing with it.”

If you are talking about jurisdiction within the water file, we have water aquifer protection and we have aquifer management. Aquifer protection is most definitely an environmental issue. It deals with environmental contaminants or biological contaminants being introduced into our water sources at the aquifer level. So aquifer protection is unquestionably an environmental issue. You could look at dividing it somehow.

Another thing we may face, which we might be able to do, is to have Dennis chair the committee from within. I'm certain Dennis is an associate member of this committee. We could accomplish it that way.

I just want to see action. I don't care who gets the credit for this; we just need action on this file. As I said, there's no more important issue in Canada today. If we don't take action, I feel it's irresponsible as a committee not to look at this issue.

Thank you.

The Chair: Any further comments? Mr. Herron.

• 0950

Mr. John Herron: Just to maybe cover off Karen's issue with regard to biotech and GMO foods, the chair might be aware that there's a private member's bill before the House right now on that particular topic, and that might be an appropriate time for us to address in a very substantive way the issues that Mrs. Kraft Sloan touched on. I think Parliament will have its day or weeks—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Have its say.

Mr. John Herron: —on that particular issue through the process of a very learned member who has tabled a bill on GMO.

The Chair: I would like to thank Mr. Herron for refreshing my memory. There is one more hour of debate coming up, and that will be the last. It offers an opportunity for any interested parliamentarian to intervene.

I will try to summarize.

Are there any further comments? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Water was mentioned as being the most pressing issue in the country. In the part of the country I come from it is smog and air quality. All of these things are perfectly worth while doing. I think we'd be remiss if we didn't at least add smog and basic air pollution as something we would consider.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What underpins all of this is risk assessment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't see the connection. Air pollution is just in your face. We put too many pollutants into the air.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right, but decisions are made as to what kinds of chemicals and toxic substances are allowed to enter the atmosphere and in what quantities, and that's based on risk assessment. Members have concerns around water, air pollution, and GMOs. The mechanism for public policy decision-making is based on risk assessment. Maybe there is a need to do a study on risk assessment, and there can be components that deal with air pollution, water quality, and genetically modified organisms.

That is the mechanism for bad public policy-making right now.

A lot of very important work is being done right now on how you integrate precautionary principle into current methods of risk assessment. The suggestion is that on the one hand it's impossible because it's not in the same sort of paradigm of thinking. Some people have an idea of what risk assessment is, just as they do about what economics is, that as capitalism it's not necessarily a method for making and distributing goods and services.

You can look at risk assessment in another way. Maybe what we have to do is understand it as a way for understanding risk, and it's not based on the old paradigm of what people are being taught and what they're practising. Maybe we have to have a new way of thinking about what risk assessment is and just call it risk assessment itself and not identify the process with the methodology. That's the problem with public policy-making decisions.

When we're doing work on the environment and health, the problem we face is that the tool we're using is not adequate to do the job, and now we have a systemic issue. If you deal with the systemic issue, then maybe all these other problems are dealt with as well.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And I thought it was all about money.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It is, because greed and ignorance is the motivator, and bad science is the mechanism.

The Chair: It is possible that the discussion and the initiatives being launched on economic indicators would allow us to expand that discussion so as to include the criteria behind the risk assessment. Therefore, we should take advantage of that debate as much as possible. Apparently some $4 million or $5 million has been allocated to fund the national round table. Maybe the national round table should be called before this committee to explain how it plans to proceed with its examination of the indicators that it has been asked to bring forward. This of course brings in the Department of Finance in the end, because they're closely related to that type of investigation.

• 0955

As you can see, and as often happens when we have a work plan discussion, the circle becomes wider and wider, and the realization that we don't sit for seven days a week becomes clearer and clearer. There is enough here to keep us going seven days a week probably for a year.

I will try to condense and conclude, unless there is someone who wishes to make one more intervention.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I apologize for intervening so much this morning, but the history is that we've often gone after a number of environmental issues and generally lost. We can follow the same track. Maybe we can make some small difference and some small incremental change, but generally we will lose.

Maybe the greater benefit of a study that this committee would do is to take a look at some of the systemic barriers and understand why we always lose. One of the reasons we always lose is the way policy and science is integrated. It's also the way the fiscal framework is established. I've had many good conversations with Stephanie Cairns, who has done a lot of work on integrating environmental thinking into business and looking at ecological fiscal reform. That's another area. There are also areas around understanding the issues and education.

It may be that as a committee we need to have a further discussion. If we're really interested in addressing and solving environmental problems, then maybe we need to look at some of the systemic barriers we face. There's the “silo-ization” of different government departments. There's a whole raft of issues. I'm not suggesting we take them all on, but it might be worth our time to start to identify the areas where the problems are.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Did you say “silo-ization”?

An hon. member: We'll explain it later.

The Chair: I know it will be inadequate, but I will try to summarize and conclude. I'll start with water, which Madam Scherrer and others have described as a dossier prioritaire, including the quality of water, the aquifers, the inventory, the export issue, and so on.

I was reminded by Mr. Comartin that in addition to the four departments, there's also a foreign affairs dimension to this.

I will ask the clerk to prepare a letter addressed to the five chairs of the five committees, that is, agriculture, health, industry, environment, and foreign affairs, and sound them out as to what plans, if any, they have to deal with water, and if they don't, what they would suggest as an initiative that would transcend the ramifications of the five departments. In other words, we will bring the discussion we had this morning to their attention and seek their advice. We will circulate their replies so that we'll hear and note what our colleagues are thinking about it, and we can have another discussion.

Might I say again that the Pearse report is still languishing on the vine, as they say, with recommendations that have not been implemented since its publication in 1986. Perhaps one or two have been implemented, at the most. So I would urge you to go through it if you have a moment.

• 1000

Moving on to the immediate future, as was suggested by many of you, next week we can have a meeting on pesticides to hear from the people who will participate in that event to celebrate the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Then we can have a meeting on COP-7 and Rio Plus 10. Through the representative of the environment department present in this room, we will inquire whether we can arrange that one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Thursday morning. That will take place in the immediate future.

We then will go on to Bill C-5 and complete it. We then will have to go into Bill C-19. We have no alternative on that.

Then we are faced with the various interventions by Madam Kraft Sloan on systemic issues and how the system makes decisions according to certain values. I don't know how that can be handled by this committee, quite frankly. We dealt with it tangentially in our pesticide report with two chapters on risk management and risk assessment. It was certainly a fabulous intellectual challenge to even understand it, because it is tough stuff. But as to how to change and gradually modify their thinking on this topic and how to modify the philosophy of risk assessment and harmonize it with the precautionary principle, I really don't know.

If the idea appeals to the members of the committee to invite the round table to appear during the next window of opportunity so that we can explore that issue with them, it can certainly be done. There could be very good justification for it, because the appointment of the president and the executive director of that round table was approved only a month or two ago. The notice came through by Order in Council. As you know, the rules permit a committee to invite anyone who has been recently appointed to appear for a good exchange of views as to their thoughts and plans in the future. So both Dr. Stuart Smith and Mr. David McGuinty could be invited to appear here when we have a window of opportunity.

That is my summary of the discussion we had in the last hour. If you would like to comment on the summary, please do so.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think that, as you said, a discussion around systemic barriers would be an interesting intellectual challenge and an opportunity. It's probably best if it's framed within some kind of concrete case.

The Chair: Yes. The only one I can think of, and there may be others, would be to take advantage of this project on indicators, which has been assigned to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: However, the Royal Society report on biotechnology lays out the regulatory framework step by step. That's why I was so interested in that particular report, because in many ways it's a really clear textbook example of where the problems lie. They were not granted the opportunity to look at the ethical and other issues around biotechnology. They were only allowed to focus on the regulatory ones. Certainly, by examining that report we could get into this topic area in a very concrete way.

But we could also look at some of the tangential issues, as you've suggested, in the round table's study of sustainability indicators. Essentially, we're talking about values shifting and putting a priority where it should be placed.

• 1005

Karen Redman and I were just in Washington at an international conference on child environmental health. There were 400 participants from all over the globe. Ten years ago there probably would have been a handful of people at a similar conference, and they would have been from Canada and the United States, and perhaps Mexico. So by putting the focus on kids and understanding clearly the precautionary principle, what that means and how to integrate it, and what definition of precaution to use, it is a very concrete way to start making that shift and hopefully changing people's values and attitudes.

There are opportunities for us—Rio Plus 10. I had a discussion with Gib Parent in Washington and he very much wants to ensure that Canada is able to advance a child environmental health agenda through Rio Plus 10, and to make sure there is discussion in South Africa around that.

I think for any of the members who were involved with the pesticide review, we realized how important it was to have as the basis for standard setting the health of our children. Not only then are we ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are protected, but even the healthiest and the least vulnerable are protected. That's truly a way to utilize the precautionary principle, because then you're not guessing about things you know nothing about. That's the point: we know nothing about some of the decisions we are making.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with your summary. It's very good.

In your letter to the other committees, is it protocol to be able to make recommendations on where you'd like to see this go? For instance, if you could say something about aquifer protection and watershed management practices, which are definitely in the purview of the environment, would it be possible to say that we would like to look at watershed protection and aquifer protection and what areas you feel fall within your jurisdiction?

The second point is, if we said that, could we also say, is a multi-committee appropriate, representatives from all those committees? That's what I'm wondering. Is that proper protocol?

The Chair: Mr. Savoy, there is no protocol. The letter I envisage would be one of bringing the discussion to their attention, bringing to their attention then specifically the issues that were raised, the urgency, from a policy point of view, and inviting their comments as to how each of those committees intends to tackle those issues and the various dimensions. If they have not yet had a meeting to discuss them...whether they would, and whether they would be so kind as to inform us as to their conclusions. If that produces some good material, then at that point a decision will have to be made as to how we channel all that political intellectual property into something that can be dealt with, considering that there are at least five departments engaged in that issue.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you.

The Chair: Unless there is another urgent matter that you wish to raise, we will be meeting at the call of the chair. Most likely the first meeting will be Tuesday, the second on Wednesday, and the third on Thursday of next week. I thank you very much.

By the way, before we adjourn, during the summer Tim Williams and Kristen Douglas prepared a report for us that you may want to use in your letters to constituents—parts of it or in its entirety. It is a very good compendium of the work of this committee in the last 10 months, roughly. The clerk will make the text available. This is the second draft. It is very informative, and maybe constituents of yours would want to know what you've been engaged in, in terms of your work on the Hill. So have a look at it.

• 1010

It is available on what system, did you say?

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher): It still requires translation.

The Chair: But it will be sent in a form that can be easily transferred to other systems.

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): Yes.

The Chair: As soon as it is translated, it will be made available.

Thank you very much for your good work. See you very soon.

The meeting is adjourned.