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, September 27, 2001

• 0908

[Translation]

The Chair (M. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to today's meeting, which is being held pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

Today we will be hearing from witnesses from several departments with respect to Rio plus 10.

[English]

Perhaps one of you would like to introduce the others and indicate the order in which you would like to speak. And, again, welcome to the committee meeting. We're very anxious to hear from you and then to ask some questions.

Ms. Christine Guay (Director General, International Relations, Environment Canada): Thank you very much. My name is Christine Guay. I'm director general of international relations at Environment Canada. I am here with some colleagues: Linda Goldthorp, who's the executive director of the Canadian Secretariat for Earth Summit 2002; Richard Ballhorn, director general at DFAIT; and Victoria Berry, who is from CIDA.

The way we would like to proceed is, if it's agreeable, I would start with a short statement to outline where we're at generally speaking with respect to Rio plus 10. And then, because a meeting just ended yesterday in the UNECE context, I'd ask Richard Ballhorn to tell us a little bit about what happened at that meeting, and then we'll open it for questions.

• 0910

The Chair: Is that the meeting you're referring to covered by the press release that you have given us?

Ms. Christine Guay: It is covered by the UNECE ministerial statement that is being circulated. The only version available is English. That's the language in which it was negotiated. The meeting ended yesterday. The UN is working to translate it in the five languages of the UN. So the French version will be available shortly, and we will make it available to all of you as soon as we have it.

The Chair: So then Mr. Bigras will get the version in French possibly tomorrow?

Ms. Christine Guay: This is a UN process. We think it's going to be within the next couple of days. As soon as we have it we will make it available.

Mr. Richard D. Ballhorn (Director General, International Environmental Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): According to the note on their website, all the versions should be up maybe later today. But we checked this morning and it wasn't there. We just got an advance copy in fact from the UN.

The Chair: Is it acceptable to Mr. Bigras that we go forward? Merci.

Fine. Then we'll start. Colleagues on the Liberal side are evidently held up by another event of some sort. They will show up as soon as they can. We will proceed so as to make the best use possible of time. Please, you may proceed.

Ms. Christine Guay: Thank you. Good morning. This morning I'm going to speak briefly about preparation, both international and here in Canada, for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. I will make a brief statement to give you an overview of where we are at in our preparation for the summit, and then be ready for questions along with my colleagues right after.

The World Summit, or, as it is commonly known, Rio plus 10, will take place slightly under a year from now during the first two weeks of September 2002. It will be hosted in Johannesburg by the Government of South Africa. The World Summit will mark the tenth anniversary since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in which I understand a few of the committee members were involved.

[Translation]

The summit will bring together heads of State and governments, non-governmental organizations, private industry, parliamentarians and officials from throughout the world. We will be discussing a wide range of subjects at the summit. The agenda has not been set as we are waiting for the intergovernmental discussions which will be taking place over the next few months. Nevertheless, our main objective is to renew and revitalize the global sustainable development program.

The international preparatory process leading up to the summit is both vast and complex. The first phase involves a series of regional meetings held throughout the world. Africa, Latin America and Asia as well as Europe and North America are organizing meetings of officials, NGOs, representatives from the business sector and other stakeholder groups to establish common priorities in preparation for the summit and, in more general terms, priorities with respect to sustainable development.

Canada is participating in the process for both the European and North American meeting. The last meeting for our region took place only recently, as we just mentioned. I believe that we reached an agreement on the priority issues that will influence international discussions with respect to the summit agenda.

After my little statement, I will turn the floor over, if possible, to Mr. Richard Ballhorn, so that he can provide us with an overview of what took place in Geneva during the past two days.

[English]

In January 2002, the international preparatory process begins in earnest. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in New York is organizing the first substantive international negotiation session to begin drafting the summit agenda and to shape the priorities that leaders will address in Johannesburg. This will be followed by a further session in March in New York, and then by a ministerial level meeting in Indonesia in May.

[Translation]

As I have already said, we have not yet set the agenda for the summit and countries are positioning themselves in order to promote their own priorities. The regional preparatory meetings have enabled us to agree on a few issues, some of which will no doubt be on the agenda of the actual summit. Right now, we foresee poverty as an issue that will attract a lot of attention, as well as fresh water, desertification and climate change.

• 0915

Given the recent events, security issues may even be placed on the agenda, no doubt as they relate to environmental, social and economic conditions in the developing world and the implications of these conditions for international security.

As we prepare for the summit, we in Canada are considering priorities suggested by the other countries and by our national sustainable development program. The national preparatory process in Canada is to a large extent designed to enable us to have an effective impact on the international process and to ensure that the viewpoints, priorities and interests of Canadians are placed on the summit agenda for the leaders.

We have prepared a schedule for consulting and engaging the public that you will find in your information kit and we will soon be travelling throughout the country in a concerted yet organized effort to hear comments and points of view.

[English]

This consultation exercise is being centred around five very broad themes. The themes are meant to provide only a framework, and within these broad themes Canada will develop its position to carry to the summit over the next year.

Our first theme is health and environment. This theme reflects growing domestic and international concern that human health is being negatively affected by environmental problems. Protecting human health is emerging as a key driver of environmental protection. This is a theme that also speaks to the poverty agenda in the developing world. Poor health linked to environmental degradation is already an important factor undermining growth and sustainable development in many developing countries.

Innovation partnership is our second theme. Through this theme, we want to focus on the positive and constructive role that the private sector can and must play in advancing sustainable development and in building healthy and strong communities. A key element of this theme is partnership between government and the private sector to promote innovation and sustainable investments around the world.

A third theme is sustainable communities. This theme is about showcasing and promoting the important steps communities across Canada have taken to improve their environment and their lives, and addressing the real and tangible challenges at the local level. This theme is a recognition that sustainable development is not an abstract concept, but rather it applies directly to our communities and in communities around the world.

Stewardship and conservation is our fourth theme. Canada has a strong record on the management of our environment and natural resources. This theme will be about bringing that story to the world and promoting Canadian experience and expertise in the protection and conservation of ecosystems and the sustainable use of natural resources, and how we continue to do further work in this area.

Finally, the fifth theme is international environmental governance. This theme is the least likely to capture the public's imagination, but it is critical in terms of bringing order and coherence to the global efforts to coordinate sustainable development. It is about advancing Canada's interest in a rules-based system of global environmental management and sustainable development.

[Translation]

Once we have consulted Canadians, which will complete the work done by the federal departments in conjunction with provincial governments and local administrations, we will draft a series of Canadian positions to be integrated into the official international preparatory process. This will get under way in January in New York. Provincial governments have already identified resource persons, and organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, have expressed their interest in participating in the preparatory process.

Many NGOS, such as the Friends of the Earth and the Canadian United Nations Association, are already involved and are anxious to participate in drafting the Canadian position. As was the case with the Earth Summit in 1992, Canada intends to be a leader in mobilizing young people. We have already taken some steps, such as funding the creation of the youth summit team, to help youth groups participate in preparing for the summit.

• 0920

In addition to the work to position Canada for the summit, we are in the process of drafting a Canadian national report on sustainable development. This report will be an honest assessment of the progress achieved in Canada to improve our environmental, social and economic well-being and to respect our international sustainable development commitments.

[English]

Our preparation for the summit will be enriched by input from parliamentarians, and in particular from this committee.

As was the case for the 1992 Earth Summit, members of Parliament will have an important role to play, both in developing our approach to the summit and in representing Canada in Johannesburg.

Funds have been identified to support this type of participation in the lead-up to Johannesburg and at Johannesburg itself.

I trust this gives you a bit of an overview of the work leading up to the World Summit. Before turning to questions, if Dick Ballhorn could briefly speak about the meeting that just ended for which you have the statement that was issued, I will stop now.

The Chair: This is adequate except for the fact that you have not indicated to us who will be in charge of this whole exercise. In other words, who will be the successor to Maurice Strong? You could tell us a little bit about that aspect, couldn't you?

Ms. Christine Guay: Well, certainly I could tell you what is not happening in this respect. Maurice Strong—

The Chair: Nothing may be materializing, but certainly efforts are taking place.

Ms. Christine Guay: Maurice Strong was leading efforts for Rio. There is no such political figure leading the effort internationally for this world summit. The coordination of the effort is being done through the Commission for Sustainable Development, and Dick Ballhorn could tell you a little more about it as he is a member of the bureau for the commission.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Just to follow up on that point, unlike the situation going into Rio there is now a Commission on Sustainable Development that was one of the outcomes of the Rio Summit. That has been the body organizing the reviews since 1992.

Mr. Strong's assistant during the organization for Rio, Mr. Nitin Desai, is the head of that body and is in fact the person most involved with the commission in leading the process. But at an even higher level, the assistant secretary-general, Louise Fréchette, is leading a group at the senior level of the UN to coordinate inputs to make sure this is a priority issue for the summit.

That's basically the structure they have, and they're actually using the commission. The full work of the Commission on Sustainable Development is concentrated on the organization of the summit for the whole year, starting as of May this year and going into May of next year. So they do have a structure there to which they've actually added bodies to organize the summit.

The one thing I would mention is that one of the key decisions made last year when they were passing the resolution to authorize a summit was that they would work on the basis of regional meetings. They would start the process not by one big meeting in New York or some other location, but would build on a series of regional meetings that the economic commissions around the world—of which I think there are five or six, working with UNEP—would actually organize.

These processes will basically end around the end of November, and on the basis of their inputs and other inputs they will begin preparing the documents for the first official preparatory conference that will start in New York at the end of January next year.

What we've been involved in as Canada is the process organized by the Economic Commission for Europe, which basically takes in all the countries of Europe, including some well into the former Soviet Union, and even takes into account some of the countries in Central Asia, plus Canada and the United States. It's something like 55 countries.

Since early July we've been involved in a process that has just finished on Tuesday of this week, basically coming up with a ministerial statement for the World Summit. This is a product of something like eight or nine days of negotiations since July, so it's a reasonably significant document. It certainly gives you a sense of what most of the developed countries are interested in, and it took actually a considerable effort to negotiate because there were fair differences of view among some of the major groups in the 55 countries, particularly between the European Union and the U.S.

• 0925

I think most of you should have a copy of the document, which I apologize for not being done in French. It's literally in the process of being translated. What you have is actually an advance copy of a document that will appear on their website probably today or tomorrow. In paragraph 4, you will note, it actually sets what are the goals and priorities of the summit, and there is a certain overlap, I think I would say, with Canada's own.

The Chair: Paragraph 4 on page 2?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: It's paragraph 4 on page 2, in which the second half of the sentence talks about what's happened since 1997:

In view of these goals, related priorities of the UNECE region for the Summit will include sustainable management and conservation of natural resources, environment and health, making globalization work for sustainable development, improving governance and democratic processes at all levels, education, science and technology. Financing for sustainable development will be a crucial cost-cutting issue.

In the first part of that paragraph it makes the point that we've been focusing our efforts since 1997 on the overarching objectives of poverty eradication and sustainable production consumption. So that is the main focus. Then the document goes on to elaborate on those themes and other themes, and in fact gets into a fair degree of detail thereafter.

There will be one document similar to this one, maybe not at such length or the product of such effort, but from each of the regions of the UN system. This plus national reports from other conferences will all be the input for the first set of documents.

Thank you.

The Chair: But you have to explain to us, Mr. Ballhorn, how you jibe these factors, these themes, A, B, C, D, E, F, with the five themes outlined by Madame Guay, because they seem to be in a slightly different sequence and have a slightly different emphasis. How do they come together? How do they converge?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: The themes that Canada has put forward were very much the themes that we took into the preparations for the regional process. So in that sense there's a fair degree of overlap with our own themes.

Certainly what we focused on, environment and health, is very much something that I think is probably in there because we put it there and were able to convince other countries that environment and health was an important theme. The natural resources issue I think is very much lined up with our own theme on natural resources. Governance, in which we had a particular focus on international governance because of our role in that, has a wider form of governance; it's international as well as governance at a domestic level. I think our innovation and partnership theme can be seen in part in the science and technology.

What is not there is the sustainable communities as an actual identified theme, but there are references to communities in the document and there is particular focus on local Agenda 21s as something that should be encouraged. There's also some mention of other focuses on communities.

The health and environment does not actually appear thereafter as a separate heading because it's scattered around in a number of places in the document and because it was thought to take too much time to actually reorganize the document sufficiently to organize everything under the same headings.

But the document you have is basically structured as an opening statement, a statement of the themes, and then a focus on priority actions at the summit, which is very much global, followed by a section that is priority actions for the region, which is much direction to the regions to work on things and individual countries to work on things. This will take account of the fact that the Economic Commission for Europe has a certain focus on environment and other issues; the OECD exists, and there are other institutions at the regional or sub-regional level.

• 0930

The Chair: Thank you.

For the purposes of a constructive discussion this morning, which themes should we focus on? The five enunciated by Madame Guay, or the seven in this paper? Which of the two sets of themes has priority?

Ms. Christine Guay: If I can suggest something...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...of the discussions around broad issues. The idea is that as we go out to the public to get input, we'll hone in on some questions and drop some others. The international process identified areas that they want to focus on more clearly, and there's a broader buy-in on some issues. For example, a theme on innovation and partnership may focus on an area under the very broad theme.

So I don't think they're at odds. The whole topic of poverty and poverty alleviation is one that we saw as an over-arching theme that affects all the other things. There's no question it will be very high on the agenda.

The Chair: All right. That's very helpful.

Since the themes developed by the UNECE are on the paper and have been given to our colleagues who just joined us, would you mind repeating for them the five themes you announced earlier? We don't have those in print, so we can bring them up to speed.

Ms. Christine Guay: We've provided a point-form presentation as well, to provide you with some background information. There's health and environment, innovation and partnerships, sustainable communities, stewardship and conservation, and international environmental governance.

• 0935

The Chair: All right. Fine. Thank you. Who is next?

Ms. Christine Guay: It's time for questions now.

The Chair: All right. Then we have on the list Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Reed, Mr. Savoy, Monsieur Bigras, Mr. Comartin. Mr. Mills, please.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Looking over everything, my first comment is it seems to be a very broad brush. I would be somewhat concerned about the focus on environment and all of the concerns. You seem to have covered everything that might be considered the world's problems. I would be somewhat worried that this could then deteriorate into a whole bunch of stuff, but not anything really concrete. That would be a comment.

I also wonder what the effects of September 11 will be. Obviously, you have to think about this. I wonder how much the world focus on terrorism is going to play into your planning and ability to proceed.

Another thing is from yesterday's discussion of innovation and partnership. We were talking about the leapfrogging of technology and the importance of this to developing countries. I hope this is going to be in there somewhere.

I would ask you too about the involvement of many stakeholders. I hope this will be in there as well. One of the criticisms I would have made about Rio was the somewhat limited involvement of the many stakeholders throughout Canada. There was a feeling that this might not have needed to occur. I encourage you to involve many stakeholders, and I ask what attempts you're going to make to involve.... You've mentioned municipalities, provinces. I would hope you will also include industry, because they're all major players in this whole thing.

Ms. Christine Guay: Let me start with the last question, and I will work my way backwards.

With regard to the stakeholders, I believe an agenda was distributed for the consultation plan we're expecting to launch in two weeks. There will be round tables across the country, with provincial officials, with aboriginal people, and with a broader segment of stakeholders, including NGOs, industry, academics—a wide range of people.

We will start this in a couple of weeks, between now and December, with a view to narrowing down some of these themes, identifying areas we really want to push for within these broad themes—where do we want to go?—based on what we learn. And we'll keep learning as other regional preparatory processes occur, because there will be one for Latin America later in October. That will affect our thinking. As we move along, we will be affected by all of these and it will become clearer. Stakeholders will be involved this way between now and December.

There is a website where people will be invited to actually comment on a discussion page. So the website is not only providing information, but also allows for a bit of interaction.

After the planned New York meeting in late January, we anticipate again going out to stakeholders. Presumably by then the world will have started shaping the actual agenda for next September. Then we will go out again with a view to getting input prior to the next preparatory meeting.

The ministerial preparatory meeting will be in Indonesia in May of 2002. We plan to go out again between January and May. These things will continue to evolve.

• 0940

So far, we've already done some work with the youth, with the municipalities under an organization called ICLEI—the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It's based in Toronto. It's very active, very well-recognized in terms of implementing a particular chapter of Agenda 21.

In relation to local authorities, we're helping them pull together a rather large conference in North Vancouver in November. There's another segment that will be affected. We do want this to become a broad buy-in from society, so it's not only one segment.

In terms of the leapfrogging of technology.... Oh, sorry.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: To extend this, not only are the NGOs and business and everyone else—the so-called major groups in UN language—obviously involved at the national level, there is also involvement at the regional level. The meeting held in Geneva I just spoke about has involved them right from the beginning, and we had almost as many NGOs as we had countries, maybe even more.

In fact, the whole preparatory process even has segments, sometimes of as much as two days, where it is basically open for the major groups. Two days out of ten have been reserved for them to make their views known as well as to participate in the other parts of the meeting. So there the process is quite heavily involved with non-governmental bodies. I can't think of any other process that has as many non-governmental groups involved as this one.

Mr. Bob Mills: It seems to me you have to do that to really gain credibility. I would worry that sometimes there's a feeling that NGOs might even possibly dominate, thus not necessarily giving the broad view of all Canadians. I'm not sure how to fix this. But it's very important for you to be aware of this potential problem if you want credibility for what's going to happen.

Ms. Christine Guay: Certainly it's our full intention to ensure that industry, church groups, all different segments of society, are indeed listened to, heard, and have a dialogue with us.

Coming back to your point on—

The Chair: Mr. Mills, the NGO that dominates these events is the corporate sector.

Ms. Christine Guay: In terms of the leapfrogging of technology, under our umbrella of innovation and partnership this is certainly one of the things we're talking about—the whole idea of how we can better harness the potential of business for purposes of sustainable development. This means cleaner technology and efforts in that respect.

There's also the whole movement of the UN global compact. It comes out in the UNECE document. As well the OECD has developed guidelines for multinational corporations in order to have corporate.... It's pushing the envelope on corporate social responsibility. This is also a part of that broad theme.

There is no question that September 11 has had an impact. Certainly in our own preparation, things like an official launch, we thought originally it would be mid-September. Well, I guess not. We do have to rethink things, but part of the positioning will have to address issues such as those outlined in UNECE's statement about poverty alleviation, inequities, and so on and so forth, because we do have to get at this. I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next on the list would be Monsieur Bigras, but Mr. Comartin has to speak at 10 o'clock, and I was wondering whether the committee would allow Mr. Comartin to be next.

Thank you.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I'll be quick.

I want to follow up on the NGO. I may be being patronizing here, but all too often the NGO is seen as a non-profit church group, an environment group. As I understand the reality now, the NGOs are at least as well represented from the private sector—associations of a particular industry, for example.

• 0945

Am I correct in that these types of—

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Certainly if you look internationally, the agreed UN language about major groups brings everyone in from business, industry, environmental groups, academics, science, indigenous groups—I can't think of anyone who is left out. We try to parallel that as far as possible at the domestic level as well.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

With regard to the governance issue, in paragraph 26 you make reference to the final recommendations coming from the special session of the UNEP governing council. Do you know when these will be completed and available?

Ms. Christine Guay: Yes.

Minister Anderson is currently president of UNEP. He's leading the effort of the international environmental group dealing with environmental governance. We are hosting a meeting under the umbrella of this group on December 1 in Montreal with a view to honing in on recommendations that we believe will be finalized in mid-February at a UNEP meeting in Colombia.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I assume Canada has a position on this issue. If it does, is it available at this time?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Yes, there was a document prepared recently.

The last meeting on this exercise was held in Algiers around September 10 or 11. A document will come out of that process as well. Mr. Anderson is obviously involved with UNEP in further elaborating a paper that will take us through. We have our own paper as well on the subject.

The Chair: On this Canada's position is subject to the consultations to take place across the country, isn't it? It's not engraved in stone.

Ms. Christine Guay: Sorry, I'm not sure I caught that question.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm trying to find where our position is now. Mr. Caccia is making the point that it's an evolving position depending on the responses you get on the consultations.

I assume that's accurate?

Ms. Christine Guay: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So how do we get access to our existing positions, the papers Mr. Ballhorn has referred to? How do we follow this?

Ms. Christine Guay: Certainly there are papers we can make available. Canada has a written paper. Starting a year ago, Canada submitted a paper in Bergen, Norway, at a meeting that kick-started the whole process. We can make some papers available so that what it is we're trying to accomplish and why we feel this is an important issue is made much clearer.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are they accessible on the Internet, on a website somewhere?

Ms. Christine Guay: I'm not sure.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm being told I have to ask for it for the committee. May we have copies for the committee?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Certainly.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Anything you suggest is....

The Chair: The commission is urging us not to activate...[Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Ballhorn.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I would mention that for international environmental governance, while it is obviously mentioned as one of our five themes and focuses, the process started earlier. It was in the minds of ministers earlier and in fact was launched at this last UNEP governing council. In some senses that theme is already out there. It's an international theme. Obviously we're involved with it and had to come up with positions sooner.

It will also be something on which we are seeking public views, but at the same time we're having to keep up with an international process that's continually going ahead. But the Canadian focus on this has been very much to make UNEP a stronger institution, to make the financing more secure, etc., so it can actually function better and have more coherence with the rest of the UN system.

The challenge is to get other countries to go along and see how ambitious we really can be here. Are we really changing the system or just making very small changes? We hope we can make some major, permanent changes.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin is raising an interesting point, namely, how do we make relevant to Canadians in the consultation process the agreements that have already been made internationally so we can make or maintain the meaningfulness of the process?

• 0950

Ms. Christine Guay: There will be a consultation paper issued before the round table begins, in order to provide more background information to all about some of our thinking on the five themes.

The Chair: We understand Mr. Ballhorn's difficulty. He has to keep up with another train, so to speak, that is travelling on its own international track. It seems to me the point he is raising is very valid.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go, and I appreciate the committee's indulgence.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions, one of which pertains to the consultations.

The word “consultation” has often been overworked. Consultations do not enable citizens to have real control over the position defended by Canada internationally. We have to remember how important it is to hold real consultations that will ensure that the Canadian position that will be advocated reflects, for all intents and purposes, what the citizens express during the consultation process that you have established.

My second question is more topical and pertains to the events of September 11. I would like to know whether, at the meeting held in Geneva on September 24 and 25, there was any talk about a future environmental emergency plan in the event of an environmental catastrophe. The transport of dangerous waste and the use of certain bacteriological or other substances are two issues that spring to mind. I would like to know whether, at this Geneva meeting, there were any discussions about an environmental emergency action plan. I am asking this question in the light of the current situation.

Ms. Christine Guay: I will ask Mr. Ballhorn to answer your question about Geneva. Since I did not attend this meeting, I cannot answer your question.

As for the real consultations, as I said, the themes are very broad for the precise reason that we want to ensure that Canadians, when consulted, are able to help us to find the priorities that we are going to want to promote during the first international meeting to be held in January.

[English]

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: On the second question, as to how much the issues or events of September 11 have influenced what we did in Geneva, especially on the environmental catastrophes, and so on, I can say they really were discussed. There was obviously mention made in a number of the interventions of ministers and senior officials, but nothing really came out in the text itself. Probably that's because, by and large, environmental ministers are less involved in some of these issues.

Certainly, the waste issue is fairly well handled already by existing conventions, the Basel Convention on the movement of waste. In that sense, the system is already there. Bacteriological warfare, that sort of thing, tends to be more in the realm of defence departments, and so on—not to say that environment ministers and health ministers wouldn't be involved, but we really haven't gone there.

In some sense, maybe it was too soon to get a reaction. I think some of these other focuses might come out later as people think and see the linkages between the September 11 events and sustainable development and see where we can go on this issue. I don't think we really know yet where it's going to go.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like to ask you another question about the world's water reserves. First of all, I would like to know whether this issue was discussed in Geneva and, secondly, what Canada's position was, particularly as it pertains to the trade aspects of fresh water.

What was defended? Were there any discussions? What was the international balance of power pertaining to this issue on September 24 and 25?

• 0955

[English]

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: In the actual document, in the regional section, water issues are mentioned in paragraph 34(b) as one of the major environmental problems in the region. This region is a very wide one—everything from Canada, the United States, and far into the former Soviet Union. And while I think the water pollution has gotten better in some areas—I would say western Europe and probably North America—it's still a major issue in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, particularly as in some of the countries the domestic water systems have broken down as they make a transition from Communism to a different system. So that has been pinpointed there.

There is an assumption these issues will come forward, particularly from developing countries, and we will be talking about water more generally in a number of areas.

Also, there is in paragraph 35 a report of the Central Asian countries focusing on, as a priority, a subregional strategy for integrated management of water resources and transboundary water courses.

As for commercial sales of water, it didn't come up. I think maybe it's because it's more of a Canadian preoccupation. I think it is not generally the main focus of discussions on water internationally. People there were more worried about water quality and using up the ground water resources, and in some cases the sharing of water in rivers and lakes, etc., that cross boundaries. But we are assuming it will be a major issue. In fact there will be a major water conference—I think the Germans are organizing it—at the end of this year, and I think most of those issues will be on the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: But you definitely had to have had a position on September 24 and 25. When you went to this meeting, you knew full well that the question would be raised, perhaps not by Canada, but most certainly by some developing countries.

What tactical or strategic position was Canada prepared to defend on September 24 and 25, when, as you knew, some countries were going to be raising the issue?

[English]

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I think Canada has a position that we don't believe in large-scale movements of water across our boundaries, south or anywhere else. I think that's the general federal policy. I don't think anything would change. I don't think we'd be advocating a different policy elsewhere.

[Translation]

The Chair: You could answer Mr. Bigras by saying that the government's position is probably set forth in government Bill C-6.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Between free trade agreements and C-6, there are two choices, right?

[English]

The Chair: We now have Mr. Reed, Mr. Savoy, Madam Kraft Sloan, and the chair.

Mr. Reed, please

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

I'm not sure how to couch this, but it always seemed to me that leadership began by example. These goals that are set out are quite noble and hopefully achievable, but I'm concerned about how much leadership Canada can provide if it's not setting an example. I think there are two that jump out at me.

One is sustainable agricultural practices and the other is sustainable energy.

I graduated from agricultural college in 1956, and the agricultural practices of the day were more acceptable to the land than the agricultural practices in 2000. It came about probably because of the move toward larger and larger machinery and the apparent economics of monoculture, etc. So when we begin to talk about sustainable agriculture on a world basis, the question is, how does Canada provide leadership in that area?

• 1000

When I think of the question of energy and the relative lack of sustainable energy development in Canada, how can we go and preach all these good things if we haven't made the commitment ourselves?

Ms. Christine Guay: I'll provide you with a very general answer, being director of international relations and not being responsible for domestic areas. There is no question there are...for example, in 1997 at the so-called Rio plus 5, there was quite a lot of disenchantment about the commitments made in 1992 and the extent to which we were able to meet them, or to meet part of them and not quite, and so on. We didn't advance, I think, and that goes for the world. We didn't quite make the strides we thought we would.

I think when we do our assessment of where we are at now, which we will be in the process of doing over the coming months, we will find there are some areas we've excelled at, while there are others that need further investment, further effort, and so on. So I'm not getting at it directly, because.... I certainly can ask colleagues of mine to provide specifics on sustainable agricultural practices and sustainable energy plans that we have in Canada. But I think overall over the next few months, as we go in, like every other country, we'll have areas we're tremendous at, and some we need to put more effort into.

I think that will come out as we prepare for the January session of New York. So it's not a whitewash of everything we've done. We do want an honest assessment. There may be areas, and I don't know, these may be two that will come out as needing further work. I'm afraid I can't comment much more on it.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: If we had some colleagues from agriculture and agrifood here, I think they would be telling us that in certain areas of agricultural practice, like the use of fertilizers and pesticides, practices are in fact improving. They're using less and using it better. They're also using many more areas of minimum tillage, so you preserve water in the soil and you have less dust. It's also something that's relevant in carbon sinks, in that area under the Climate Change Convention. So I think if you had the agriculture people here, they would be quite proud of where they think Canada is going on that front.

In fact, it was interesting that in the recent meeting in Geneva it was the breakup of larger farming units in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, they were worried about. They'll cause more damage because people will be using more fertilizers and pesticides than before. So all of a sudden they have more water courses involved and they're getting polluted.

But I think in agriculture, Canada thinks it has a reasonable story to tell. Certainly Agriculture Canada has quite a detailed sustainable development strategy—the one that was tabled this past February. I think it's a positive story.

As far as energy is concerned, there's obviously work being done on renewable energy in Canada. Of course, sustainable energy is a wide term. We would obviously think hydro is in that area. Certainly hydro is seen as sustainable. If you're looking at renewables in the sense of only new things like biomass, wind, or solar, then of course Canada is only just getting into the game, having installations strictly in the wind power area.

There's quite a debate about what is sustainable. Nuclear power was a major issue. At this conference people steered away from it; they didn't want to take up the whole debate about whether nuclear power was sustainable or not. But certainly there's quite a debate, and most countries are working on trying to get more renewable energy into their systems.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed. Can you give us assurance to the effect that the definition of sustainable development is the Bruntland definition?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Yes.

The Chair: In light of what you just said.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: It hasn't changed.

The Chair: So that is how the documents are to be understood.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Well, they're UN documents. Yes, I would assume so.

The Chair: Mr. Savoy, please.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you for appearing today. I'd like to look at points 27, 28, and 29 on financing sustainable development.

• 1005

In point 28, you mention that we “should help developing countries and countries in transition to build and develop the framework that they need to attract the sources of capital necessary for sustainable development”. I think we have something, as I understand it from conversations, that we should be very proud of in Canada, an initiative called the sustainable cities initiative, where we've gone, I believe, to three or four developing cities in developing countries and sat down with these cities to look at their sustainable development needs.

We have actually identified in a variety of areas, including communications, transportation, and environment, how those communities, those cities, should manage their development towards the goal of sustainable development. I think it's an issue we should be very proud of as Canadians, and I understand consideration is being given to expanding it.

Not only does it promote Canada on the global scene as a concerned global partner in sustainable development in these developing cities, in developing countries, but it provides, as I understand it, economic opportunities for our environmental industry as well, in the sense that once these sustained development opportunities are identified, we actually source much of the technology from Canadian companies. Here is something we should also be proud of, our Canadian environmental technologies.

So I wonder how you're incorporating the sustainable cities initiative specifically into the WSSD and how you see that whole process evolving. Is the idea of sustainable cities something we will be showcasing on an international scale, and what are your plans in that regard?

Ms. Christine Guay: Definitely the sustainable cities idea was raised and discussed by all departments. There's quite a lot of support for it. And I think you're quite right, the plans are to find a path forward to go from five cities—because I believe it is five cities—to more cities. Certainly within our preparatory work for WSSD we're setting aside a bit of money to help identify how to push on to the next step.

It is something that is of great interest. Many departments in town are very excited about it because, as you say, it does bring all segments of society together to accomplish urban development in a sustainable way. So it is something.

As to how it will evolve, I would be lying if I told you I know exactly. But I know we're putting some effort into it. We're setting aside some funding in order to know how one takes it from the pilot of five to more, and maybe with a view to announcing something at the World Summit. So it is definitely being factored in. We just don't know exactly how it will evolve.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay. Richard, did you want to add anything to that on sustainable cities?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: No, other than that the concept is there. I think the Agenda 21s for local communities have been very much recognized in the regional area. I think the role that local communities can play was already mentioned.

ICLEI, in fact, has already had a North American preparatory conference, as we have had a Canadian one, and it will be a major player in addressing the communities issue at the summit. It's actually an organization designated by the UN to organize that area of the summit. So I think we'll be hearing a fair bit from local communities.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay. I feel it's something that we should showcase at an international level because it's such a successful program, as I understand it, and it really promotes Canada as a global citizen in sustainable development.

The second question I have concerns the sustainable cities initiative, which can be viewed as the initiative that promotes opportunities for environmental technologies in Canada in sustainable development. Not only does it provide us with a good reputation as a global citizen in promoting sustainable development in developing communities, but it also provides our companies in the environmental sector, mainly small and medium-sized companies, with lead generation for future projects.

But we are one of the only G-7 countries without a DFI, a development financing institution. We are the only G-7 country, and one of the only OECD countries, without that. What the DFIs do, for the benefit of my colleagues here, is look at infrastructure projects, primarily in foreign markets, and at helping our companies put together proposals and projects. They look at equity and debt financing for those projects. The majority of the other OECD countries have them. All G-7 countries have them. Canada is the only one that doesn't have them.

• 1010

So I'm wondering how you would incorporate, or whether DFIs are being incorporated, in your approach to the Rio plus 10.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: My understanding of that subject, of which I know relatively little, is that there are some efforts within departments looking at that issue seriously and bringing it forward to ministers. But I don't know more than that. I think the absence in Canada has been noted, and there are currently some interdepartmental discussions to bring forward the idea of Canada's having such an institution.

Mr. Andy Savoy: We are competing on an international scale on sustainable development projects, primarily for infrastructure, at an extreme deficit—or faced with extremely unfair competition, I suppose is the way to look at it—in that these other countries are being funded through DFIs and we are not. It's a real—

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I would point out that CIDA Inc., which is the business and commercial side of CIDA, does in fact have some involvement in this area. I think much of it has been in feasibility studies, consulting services, etc. I think it doesn't probably go as far in financing as the business side would like, and concerning that gap I understand there are discussions among certain departments of government, including my own, about where this issue should go and how it should be dealt with.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do apologize for coming in late and I also apologize if my question has already been answered.

In looking at Canada's five theme areas, I notice that you have health and environment. I'm particularly concerned about issues dealing with child environmental health and know this to be a huge problem not only in Canada but around the globe. I'm just wondering how child environmental health concerns are going to be reflected under the health and environment theme.

Ms. Christine Guay: As I think you will see from the discussion paper, we're in the process of developing that aspect. As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, Minister Anderson has been quite an advocate of the whole issue of health and environment, particularly concerning child environmental health. It is an issue he's been pushing in the context of the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, the CEC. It is an issue that was raised under the Americas ministerial meeting last March, and there is a planned follow-up for this winter as part of our preparation for WSSD. Canada plans to host a health and environment ministerial meeting of the Americas in which that would undoubtedly feature.

One thing we found when we talked to several of our colleagues, for example in Latin America, is they are very concerned about environmental health. They don't stop at children's health. Their reaction is often to say “Our problem is so much more massive; why children?” This is often the question that has come up.

Madam Whitman, the administrator of the U.S. EPA, has recently mentioned at the CEC.... She's very keen on children's health. As you're probably aware, the U.S. has done, in the past, a tremendous amount of work in that area. She's now concerned about very many other vulnerable populations and has asked that we expand to look at a broader set of vulnerable populations, the elderly being another segment of the population. But she was also looking at—if I recall correctly, and Karen Redman was with us at the time—I believe it was farm workers, for example, upon whom she thought we needed to focus as well.

So there is no question that for environmental health, from our perspective—we'll touch on health—as it moves to the world stage, it could be that it is vulnerable populations that will be addressed, children just being one among many others.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right. But when you look at children's environmental health you're not excluding anyone else—

Ms. Christine Guay: No. Correct.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And certainly if we undertake environmental standard-setting, particularly around toxins and things like that, then quite obviously, in many respects we're protecting the health of other groups and individuals in society. With regard to CEPA, for example, we got nowhere talking about the environmental health implications of that, but the United States has done very well looking at pesticides and framing that issue within the context of children's environmental health. I think there is more sensitivity on the part of the public when you talk about these issues within the context of child environmental health; it seems that people are more willing to listen to you. Plus, you are creating a more comprehensive, better informed decision-making approach to the management of certain environmental issues and are not limited only to toxic substances. Climate change and all kinds of other things are involved as well. I would certainly encourage the work that's done by Canada to be very forceful on this issue, and I know that Canada has a strong interest in advancing this.

• 1015

The other question I would have is on the north. I've been actively involved with the Arctic parliamentarians, and I think there have been substantial gains made through the Arctic Council to have the Arctic recognized as a geopolitical area. I think in many respects there was success internationally on the POPs agenda because of their very strong voice and the participation of Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who is head of the Canadian chapter of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. The fact is that here is a region of the world that has to pay for the environmental health cost of these pollutants, yet they don't share in the benefits of the revenue generated. I think their story was well appreciated and made a huge impact. Canada is a northern country, so I would wonder what kind of reflection of northern concerns will appear in Canada's position at Rio plus 10.

Ms. Christine Guay: Exactly what the position will be, I don't know. We are at the stage of identifying things. Certainly the Arctic is an area we've been pushing. There is no doubt in my mind that the Arctic will be featured as part of our preparatory work. For example, one area where it works very well is health and the environment, and it is certainly our intention to move forward that way.

In the work of the Arctic Council itself, as they meet over the coming year, they and Canada will as well participate in shaping their direct input into the World Summit, so in effect we will do it on two tracks. One will be part of our direct involvement in the Arctic Council, and the second will be part of the preparatory process we have on the WSSD, developing the Canadian position. Generally, we've been in contact with organizations that obviously are prominent and are representative of Canadian northern communities to make sure they are involved in our preparatory process in the WSSD. I suspect dates may shift a bit as things don't always line up exactly as planned, but we are planning to go north for our consultations to ensure that they have direct input.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I'll just add to that. In the national report Canada will be putting together there will be an Arctic chapter, and I would say the Arctic Council and the indigenous groups that are active in it were probably the most active NGOs at this recent meeting in Geneva. In fact, there were enough paragraphs in the text—paragraph 12, etc.—that it got to the point where I think other people were almost getting tired of hearing about the Arctic. Since there were eight countries out of 55, no other group seemed to be as able to push and get as much support from countries in the room as the Arctic Council ones.

Certainly, there's also strong language about POPs and getting implementation of POPs both at the regional level and at the international level.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And it could almost be a thread, in some respects, because under innovations and partnerships for sustainable development, trying to understand cold technologies and that sort of thing is important.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

I wonder, Madame Scherrer, if I could go ahead....

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Yes, yes.

[English]

No problem. You owe me one, but it's okay.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Write it down, and he should sign it.

• 1020

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Inaudible—Editor]...so even if some nations may be tired of hearing us on that theme, the point raised by Madam Kraft Sloan is one we all share as a major preoccupation. So I would encourage you to continue in your elaboration on this theme.

I'd like just briefly to comment and perhaps ask one question. It seems to me that it is very serious that at the present time there is no executive director or no person in charge of the entire process of Rio plus 10, and I'm sure this has been addressed. There is this duality of Fréchette and Desai, to which you have referred, Mr. Ballhorn. But if I understood you incorrectly, then please clarify it for us now.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I just made the point that Mr. Desai is, I think, doing essentially the same job Mr. Strong did. He's not as well known internationally, but he's very competent.

The Chair: Has he been officially appointed?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Absolutely. He's head of the whole unit in the UN system that deals with—

The Chair: I know he's the head of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, but—

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: He's bigger than that. He has a much—

The Chair: Excuse me. It doesn't make him automatically the executive director of Rio plus 10, so can you tell us whether he is the executive director or the secretary-general of Rio plus 10?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: My understanding of the structure, and it is somewhat different from last time—

The Chair: That's your understanding of the structure. I'm asking you whether he is or he is not the secretary-general of Rio plus 10.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I'm not sure that is his title yet, but he certainly—

The Chair: Right, so there is no one in that position.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I'm not sure there ever will be, quite frankly. I'm not sure they'll use that title, because in fact he has a ranking in the UN system of assistant secretary-general, etc., and he is responsible for that whole, quite large unit in part of the system in New York, and I think he's definitely the person who is overseeing the processes on a day-to-day basis. I would assume he would be the person up on the podium through the prep coms.

The Chair: He has been entrusted with that position by which body?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: By the Secretary-General, who makes those decisions. In addition—

The Chair: Has that been officially announced?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I can't recall exactly where it was, but that is certainly how it's operating today.

The Chair: So it's an assumption that is being made?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Yes. As far as I know, there is not going to be anybody else appointed higher than that. There is, as I said, the deputy secretary-general, Louise Fréchette, who is overseeing a group within the UN system to make sure good attention is paid to this whole summit because it's very much a horizontal issue. I think there is also in process some naming of a group of eminent persons to be an advisory group, but I haven't actually seen that list yet.

The Chair: Well, I appreciate your explanation, which points to a serious deficiency here, because until a secretary-general is officially announced, there is here a division of responsibilities with a variety of heads, and I don't know what the full line of authority in the system is. Is Madam Fréchette responsible to Mr. Desai, or is Mr. Desai responsible to Madam Fréchette, or are they both responsible to someone else, and who would that be?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: My understanding is very much that Mr. Desai and the people who work for Mr. Desai are in charge of organizing all the preparations for the summit from the UN side. In order to make sure there is the highest level of attention being paid in the UN system, the Secretary-General has also designated Louise Fréchette as a sort of person to make sure the UN system takes this seriously. She chairs some kind of high-level group within the UN to make sure everything is done to make this somewhat of a success.

The Chair: Would it be fair to assume that Mr. Desai reports to Madam Fréchette?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I imagine he comes into the group and reports on what's going on, but I'm not sure that he actually reports to her. She is somebody who is a deputy to the Secretary-General and who obviously takes on jobs the Secretary-General asks her to do. I don't think everybody reports through her to the Secretary-General.

Ms. Christine Guay: My understanding is very much in line with Dick Ballhorn's. What we could do for the committee is to write it out so that it's very clear, and we will check it directly with our UN mission just to make sure our understanding is indeed right. But at all international meetings—

• 1025

The Chair: That's very kind of you, and we certainly accept your offer. But what is worrisome is that here, one year before the event, there is still an unclear line of responsibility, which leads me then to the next question, which is that in your presentation you told us there is no internationally agreed-upon agenda. Does that mean, then, that the agenda agreed upon by the ECE and its 55 member nations is now going to be taken to a larger body, and if so, which body and when, and when do you expect an agreement on an international agenda?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: The original resolution of the UN, which was passed last fall and started the whole process, made very clear at the outset that they were not going to presume to know the themes. The themes would emerge through the regional meetings and other meetings that would come up, but particularly the regional meetings. That's why they're very important.

The developing countries in particular resisted any idea of assuming that we knew in advance what the themes would be. There are certain informed assumptions about what they're likely to be, but there's nothing officially laid down. That will only be when we get through the preparatory conference in January, which is essentially an assessment. They will have all the information there and will have an assessment, and out of that, they will start elaborating the themes. At the preparatory conference that starts in March we will probably see some better sense of themes and a confirmation of that at the May ministerial meeting. But this is going according to the schedule that all members of the UN approved, so we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Guay, did you want to say something?

Ms. Christine Guay: No, I would have said the same thing, maybe less eloquently.

The Chair: The picture that emerges here is slightly worrisome—and this is not a criticism of you, of course—which is that one year before the event, there is no secretary-general and no international agenda. The situation is not very reassuring; nevertheless it will have to be resolved, hopefully soon.

As to the themes, I like them very much. I think they are very well chosen, particularly the fourth one on stewardship and conservation.

Let me express the hope that we will be quite frank at this event and also admit that we have had failures in stewardship and conservation. I'm referring to the cod and the salmon, for instance, and the fishery in general. That is a story that needs to be examined.

Within a broader idea, the question is, will the Johannesburg event be a declaration of national successes, or will it be balanced by also an examination of failures? Rio was a photo opportunity for politicians, and they gave fantastic speeches that were implemented to a very limited degree. If one has the time to review them, you will see what I mean.

Let us make sure that Rio plus 10 is an honest assessment of what has gone well, of course, but also what has not gone well. Particularly under the theme of stewardship and conservation here at home, we have to say something about the fishery that ought to be useful to the international community, and some other countries ought to say something about forestry, the picture of which is not very reassuring either.

Ms. Guay, is it your sense that this is going to be a photo opportunity for politicians, or is this going to be an honest intellectual exercise in recognizing successes and failures?

Ms. Christine Guay: I would say that it is the latter, even more so than if it had been staged. If we had known a year ago what the agenda was.... Eventually everything gets negotiated so clearly and so carefully that when you arrive at the event it's far more staged. This is not the case. It's a very participatory process in getting there. In the spring, the Commission for Sustainable Development was very clear that there are gaps. We had great hopes, and we have achieved a lot, but we have gaps. We came short in some areas.

• 1030

Certainly Canada has the full intention of ensuring that our reporting and the way we approach it is a very honest picture, with successes and difficulties.

I think the world is coming around in the formal preparatory processes but also in the informal discussions you have on the margins of other meetings. It is quite clear that we have to use the meeting as a way to jump ahead. There were gaps. We have difficulties. We need to find ways to overcome them, and I think there will be a great emphasis on looking forward in September 2002 and figuring out how we can give it the next push so that we can actually accomplish some of the things we weren't able to accomplish.

I think one of the good things about it, as much as it makes you nervous—and it makes us bureaucrats very nervous not to have agendas, and so on, because we're dealing with a lot of uncertainties—is that it does allow us to prepare how we'll address the gaps, to focus not on a widget that we'll put up to the world but on how to make it happen better. We look back and see that we have some gaps, so how do we narrow the implementation gap? Among several conferences over the next year, one that will occur in the spring, in Mexico, I believe, on financing for development is a key one. A variety of events will occur over the next year that set the stage for what leaders will be able to do in terms of how to narrow the implementation gap.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I would just look at paragraph 7 of the document that came out of Geneva. That will give you a sense of certainly most of the developed countries. This is language that the European Union and the Americans, as well as ourselves and other countries, agreed to. It says:

We seek to launch in Johannesburg a concrete mechanism to carry forward our shared objectives for sustainable development. Countries in the region intend to further discuss how to deepen the dialogue for enduring global understanding.

I think the last sentence is quite significant:

We note the wish of the European Union and other countries to seek to achieve a “global deal”.

There is this concept out there of a global deal that sort of brings together economic, social, and environmental issues, key ones, because this is a conference wider than Rio in some senses—that was environment and development; this is sustainable development, which is even wider—and that there would be some kind of deal between developed and developing countries, and maybe east-west, north-south, however you want to put it, that there would actually be some commitments. Some of that would be bringing forward things already agreed upon, but putting it as overall, making the linkages with other issues.

I think you'll be hearing more about this global deal language in the future. Certainly the European Union has already said, as a union, that this is how we should be going, moving towards that. The South Africans are starting to put forward a paper that doesn't use the words “global deal”—I think it's called “global partnership”—but it's some idea of what they're about.

I think that's going to be increasing, where we end up with a large package of some things already agreed upon, but in some cases, just to be repeated and reiterated, some of the targets will be taken from the OECD and other places in development and other things added to it, and this might well be the package people want to go to.

Nobody really wants to negotiate per se the outcomes from Rio, either the declaration or Agenda 21, but I guess they want to use that as a point of departure, to reinforce those documents but also to package something up. There will probably be quite a push for targets in time and to achieve certain things by certain dates. That was my sense of discussions from the last week.

The Chair: Thank you. It's most interesting what you just said about the global deal.

You may also make note of the fact that the global deal was arrived at in 1985 through the Brundtland report agreement on the concept of sustainable development, because the concept of sustainable development at that time was the agreement on a compromise between the developed and the developing world, which wanted to have incorporated in this idea of sustainable development the notion that there ought to be development, and the developed world insisting that it ought to be somehow under certain conditions and therefore sustainable. The emergence of these concepts was already the first step towards a global deal.

• 1035

It would be very helpful in the months ahead if you could keep this committee informed about documents on this subject that may come across your desk. Would that be possible?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Certainly.

The Chair: I apologize again.

Mr. Mills, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you.

My question is probably much broader than the others that have been asked today. Right now the secretariat has been mandated to look back 10 years to see what has been done and what should have been done following the last summit, in other words, to find out where we have failed and where we have been successful. The secretariat must also establish priorities and prepare a program of activities to be undertaken over the next 10 years.

The themes contained in the document are indeed horizontal concepts. I don't seem to be able to find anything that is not covered by these themes. I would imagine that you're covering just about all that it is possible to cover over a 20-year period.

However, when I listen to the questions asked by my colleagues, which deal with specific issues such as children's health or municipal initiatives, and I look at the way that we are going to be doing the consultation, one big question springs to mind: are we not in the process of making an all-dressed pizza? We are simply going to be entertaining all kinds of suggestions, which are perhaps more or less important right now, but which may be so for me in my daily life. Perhaps, as we hold these Canadian consultations, we should be stating some national priorities.

I do believe that we have priorities. We do have hot topics. We do have issues that are of concern to us but not to others. Without determining the nature of the consultation, we could say, for example, that we would like to have your opinion on some very specific issues, on issues that have an impact on us, on issues where perhaps we have not achieved all the success that we had hoped for, without really limiting the consultation to two or three subjects.

I am just about blown away by your mandate: looking 10 years back and 10 years ahead. Hats off to you. I too often fear what people fear during these summits. What happens is that, ultimately, everybody preaches for virtue and says it is wonderful. I think that we all agree on the objectives. We leave the summit with proposals that are very, very diluted, which don't have any real impact on us, because we have wanted to cover too much ground. We never come away with any very specific proposals on our own issues.

Ms. Christine Guay: I would like to be able to give you a direct answer, but I cannot.

In preparing this document, we felt that we should cover everything under the sun. I think that all the countries are dealing with this and fear, at this point, eliminating issues that are extremely important for other countries, whether this be countries from Africa or developing countries in general. We do not want to eliminate things too soon.

In preparing for the consultation, we intend to ask people for their opinions, but we also intend to try, during the course of the discussions, to determine to what extent people want to target specific issues. That does not mean that, at the international meeting, we will not be wearing very big hats, but within these priorities, where do we want to put our emphasis?

I would like to go back to something Dick mentioned earlier: the apparent desire to have targets. As soon as there is a desire to have targets, we need to be more specific. I am very hopeful that between now and January, things will take shape.

• 1040

Yes, these consultations will be urgent because we will not have a great deal of time later on, but they will give everybody an opportunity to express their point of view. As you said very eloquently, Canada obviously has priorities that it wants to promote, and that we will continue to want to promote. We will use the consultations to define particular issues that we will be emphasizing at the end of January, at the New York meeting.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: So the purpose of the consultative process is to zero in on priorities.

Ms. Christine Guay: We hope so. I have no illusions, I am certain that we're going to be hearing just about everything. That's what happens during consultations. Part of the consultative process will be to encourage people to look back and say what they think about what was done. What did we do well and what did we do poorly? This is where we are. What do you want? What should we be focusing on? Give us your comments on the themes and what you want to see under these themes. Did we really miss anything? Are we off track? In other words, did we miss the boat? You should say so if this is the case because we still have time to make adjustments. This is what we intend to do. We intend to really zero in on a few issues.

I did not mention, for instance, health and environment. One of the issues that we are focusing a great deal of attention on is the need for scientific development, for scientific data so that we have the necessary base for pushing forward with concrete measures. We all fully understand that without the scientific base, we are not able to go any higher; we face mountains that are almost impossible to get around. This is one aspect that we are pushing quite hard. This will take shape over the next few months, I believe.

[English]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have one small question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Right now things are happening quite quickly. Decisions are being made on very specific files. Do you not think that your objective of covering the past 10 years and the next 10 years is not, in fact... Things are evolving very, very quickly. Shouldn't we be asking for a review of the progress achieved in five years time? Ten years is a long time to wait to say that we were not able to reach such and such an objective and correct the situation. Should we not be making a recommendation that we take stock of the situation in five years' time?

Ms. Christine Guay: There will, out of necessity, be interim targets within the various conventions in which we are an active participant. For instance, we are still talking about the POPs convention. I say POPs so often that I forget the right words for it. We want to emphasize that this convention must be ratified very soon. So there are things like that. We do not want to wait ten years, and this is stated in the document. Some countries, including Canada, want this to be ratified very soon. It is not realistic to wait 10 years.

Also, the international process within the various protocols and conventions does not stop for the summit. This work will continue, and we will continue to have interim targets. We will learn that there are new pollutants causing incredible problems. We want to take action quicker. You must not think that the review that will be held in 10 years will prevent us from setting interim targets.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Savoy.

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

We all agree with the goals of sustainable development internationally, but one thing we often fail to look at—and maybe we feel it's beneath us, or we'd be too opportunistic if we took that approach—is the opportunity surrounding sustainable development, as I spoke to earlier with DFI and SCI.

I think when you're looking at those opportunities, by identifying them, pursuing them, and being successful, you ultimately increase our capacity as a nation to provide sustainable development solutions. Hence, you increase our reputation internationally in the field of sustainable development.

• 1045

I was just wondering if there is anything in the works in the consultations, or whether you're being proactive in searching out economic opportunities relating to sustainable development, specifically as it relates to Rio plus 10.

Ms. Christine Guay: I could be totally off track, and tell me if I am, but we are pushing for technology exhibits, for example, and we've already been in some preliminary discussions with South Africa about setting up technology exhibits there during the summit. We are hoping to use large technology fairs in Canada over the next year as a platform for industry to position itself on a good sustainable development footing, with a view to looking forward to the WSSD. So we are planning that as part of our preparation, but I'm not sure if I'm getting to your question.

Mr. Andy Savoy: It is partially, but we also have to look not just at exhibiting our technology and technical resources, but at identifying areas of sustainable development strategically where Canada has expertise or a competitive advantage. I was wondering if, in the process of consultations or at the event, we are addressing that situation.

Ms. Christine Guay: Certainly, I think our colleagues in Industry Canada and NRCAN are definitely looking at some of those areas. I know the Ministry of Natural Resources is very keen on pushing for good administration and corporate social responsibility in the area of mining, and then basically exporting it elsewhere through international initiatives on mining. So there are sectors of industry that do want to do this. I'm not sure what the chemical associations are interested in, but I'm sure they're thinking about it in the same vein. It is being looked at and it will come out in discussions that have just started. We had a few informal ones with some industry associations, but it will come out over the next few months.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Consultations with industry associations?

Ms. Christine Guay: Yes.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay.

Ms. Christine Guay: Certainly Industry Canada and NRCAN have it in mind to push that aspect of things as well.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you.

Richard, did you have something to add?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: No, I just wanted to say that mining in particular is something I think Canada is probably the most active on—trying to get something going as a global dialogue on mining and metal, in both the mining side and the recycling side, because of the size of the Canadian industry and its involvement in the world. It's a combination of good practices and corporate social responsibility. Also the mining industry itself internationally is going forward on that path. I think there's a large mining congress in Toronto in May that probably will lead into this.

The business community this time around is much more involved. In fact, the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development have actually been tasked by the UN to bring business and industry together in a more organized way for the summit. There are actually regional meetings happening around the world.

I think, though, the business community want to have an influence, but also want to spend their time as best they can. If there are going to be exhibits, they want them to be useful, not just things that are there. They want them to make a difference. That's one of the challenges, for instance, in South Africa—to have an exhibit that actually makes a difference; not just have a bunch of examples, but be there and actually make it work. That's the challenge.

The GLOBE environmental show in Vancouver early next year is what we hope will be a major focus of sustainable development and sustainable practices.

Mr. Andy Savoy: This may be too specific, but at a number of international conferences I've been to there have been networking opportunities to deal up strategic alliances in specific markets. South Africa is certainly a large market with a strong mining presence, so you would think Canadian mining expertise would certainly be welcome there and present opportunities in that market.

Do you know of a specific networking initiative like they have at GLOBE, for instance, for the joining of host countries' and regions' companies with our companies going over? Is that too specific?

• 1050

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I think one should probably see this less as trade promotion than as building support for certain initiatives. The World Summit itself isn't great for the trade show, because the right people aren't there. But I think if you get certain concepts into people's minds, then if you want to take that concept forward afterwards you need certain technologies or access to information. I think that's where the information comes up.

I think it's the way the GLOBE does it—a combination of talking about the issues and having technology available. Bringing it together is probably the way to go here, rather than a straight trade mission or trade show.

It's not necessarily the right audience. By and large, the environment ministers, and other people in that area, are the ones who run the process at the ministerial level, but they're not the people who buy equipment. If you're going to sell, it's to other people. But you want to make it interesting enough that other people come to the event. So I think it's more indirect trade promotion, making sure you're known as a source of technology, than actually making on-the-spot sales. You'll be following up later on.

Mr. Andy Savoy: But I should point out that when the environment ministers make policy decisions, they influence the direction of environmental technologies. That's why industry does want to be there.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Yes, I agree—industry is there in spades, no question. They're in. But I think they want to be there in a way that's useful for them, and not just, “Okay, you can come, but you're not really involved”. They're much more involved in a systematic way this time than they were at Rio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

This was a part of your presentation I missed, but I was told there was some mention of climate change?

Ms. Christine Guay: I don't think I mentioned it, but it's undoubtedly mentioned in the document on UNECE.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. I thought there was an aside on climate change. I'm just wondering how this issue is going to be reflected in the documents at Rio plus 10: What level of focus will be on climate change? Will it be dispersed between the other theme areas?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: If I may respond to that, obviously the Geneva document just has positive things to say about the outcome in Bonn in July. So I guess we assume that our meeting in Marrakesh will not be postponed and that it will have a positive outcome. So we'll have all the rules we need to get underway with ratification. I think the push will be on to ratify the Kyoto Protocol as soon as possible, and in a lot of countries that means 2002—assuming, obviously, the existence of financial flows in some of the developing countries.

I don't think the conference itself will want to go much further into that area, because that has already been a subject of major focus. But I think the countries will be much more likely to look at the issues that haven't been well covered yet—orphan issues, new issues. They will make note of progress in this and urge people to get on with implementing, but I don't think we'll go much further than that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But climate change brings issues around environment, health, innovation, and what people are doing in their local communities.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The other question I have is about systemic barriers: advancing environmental ecological agendas within governments. There is always the question of science, and whether there's proper funding for independent, public-interest-based science, as opposed to strong ties with economic interests and other very narrow interests.

We should even look at some of the tools and methodologies for assessing risk, things like that. I'm sure you're aware that the whole area of risk assessment is controversial. I'm sure there are other systemic barriers within the system as well, which make it difficult to advance the shift towards a more sustainable society. I'm wondering if some of these issues will be looked at among the different themes.

Ms. Christine Guay: Certainly science is important. I couldn't tell you exactly how it will be featured. But from Environment Canada's perspective, as you can imagine, showcasing science is key, as is ensuring that we know its importance for advancement in sustainable development. We're planning some work in that specific area, on a very general basis.

• 1055

Particularly in the area of health and environment, as I mentioned, we're pushing for and examining ways to strengthen our scientific abilities. That's probably the best way at this stage. We're in discussions with Health Canada—because, as you know, we work very closely with them on this sort of issue—in order to analyze exactly what we want to put forward. In terms of pushing, this is definitely a key element for Environment Canada. So far, there's a general consensus of the importance of it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm a very strong advocate of making sure the natural sciences have enough funding to do the work required. But the social sciences also need to assist in developing policy—to come up with better methodologies for communicating with the public, and for understanding democracy and governance.

Ms. Christine Guay: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you look at the equity component of sustainable development, I think in many respects that's clearly the most important component, because that's the reason we do this. So the social sciences are another area needing proper attention and focus.

Ms. Christine Guay: Just a thought: at the OECD ministerial meeting back in the spring, that whole area of the social dimension of sustainable development was raised. I don't think anybody has quite resolved the whole concept of sustainable development, exactly how to implement it so that everything works, and the three pillars are equally taken care of.

One of the observations made at the OECD by several delegation ministers was that we're getting pretty good at understanding economic environmentalism, but it's another question whether we're applying it just the way we should. We understand it quite well, but sometimes the barrier is social. We have to bring that into the equation.

Certainly within the OECD countries, there is a recognition that this may have lagged behind a little bit. We focus so much on the economic environment that we haven't quite brought in the social aspect to the extent we should. In terms of preparation, as I said, there's the official preparatory process, and then there are all the other institutions preparing. But I think this is another issue that's evolving, and one that certainly came to the fore back in the spring.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Back in 1996, the delegation of Canadian parliamentarians in Yellowknife, the Arctic parliamentarians, were trying to advance a definition of a sustainable approach. One thing was sustainable livelihood. That came up again when they headed the Canadian delegation at the APEC meeting in the Philippines, with ministers of the environment. That was my small contribution to the Canada statement on this idea of sustainable livelihood.

That may be another point of entry to start looking at the integration of economy and environment, ecological concerns and equity. I know that not everything we do is work. But in many parts of the world, they're just trying to eke out a living and survive. We could look at the issue of sustainable livelihoods as a portal to enter the social dimension and bring together concerns of ecology, economy, and equity.

Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: To respond to the risk side, paragraph 31 of this document from Geneva addresses the issue of precaution. It was one of the most difficult issues to actually get language on in the text at the end—to recognize the debate out there over the principle of precautionary approach and acknowledge that it's something we should look at. I was chairing the drafting group, so I know it took a long time to get this relatively simple language.

• 1100

By the time we get to Rio, I hope we'll be informed by the discussion on the precautionary approach principle that's likely to be held in Canada in the coming months.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When we look at some of the things I mentioned earlier—child environmental health, systemic barriers within government, that sort of thing—I think we need a clearer understanding of how to operate and what understanding of the precautionary approach principle we're going to share.

I tend more to the principle side, but how do we actually operationalize that and make it concrete through our actions? In many respects, that's key. That may be another portal into these discussions. It's a highly abstract concept in some respects, but people around the world have been acting in a precautionary way for thousands and thousands of years. It's part of the normal fabric of life for them. But how do we describe it?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): If there are no other questions, I'd like to thank our guests for being here and answering our questions. I trust you'll keep in touch with us as it proceeds. If we as members can be of any help, I know we'd all be interested.

I'll just remind the members that our next meeting will be Tuesday. The lock-up with the Commissioner of the Environment is that morning between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m., so our next meeting will be at 11 a.m.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As long as we're in before 11 a.m., there's a lock-up. We get an advance looked at the copy, but we can't leave the room?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): I think we can leave, only the guests can't.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As long as we don't leave with the documents, I guess.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Yes. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.