ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Á

1115

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

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Á

1120

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Á

1125

Ms. Kristen Douglas

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Á

1130

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

Á

1135

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Ms. Kristen Douglas

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Tim Williams

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Á

1140

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Á

1145

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Á

1150

Á

1155

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Â

1205

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 016

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, everybody.

    You may recall that we decided the last time to do three things. One was to revisit the issue of “significant”. The second was to go through the concluding chapter, chapter 5. Finally, we decided that instead of calling in the report for tabling in the House once it is completed, we will put it on the back burner in order to see what amendments, if any, appear in the report stage of Bill C-9. When that substance has been revealed to the world, we will then know whether the text of our report is in conformity with Bill C-9 or whether adjustments may be necessary, so as to be consistent. There may be no requirements, so we will just put it aside and proceed with our next step, which we could also discuss today.

    To begin with, on page 25 of your material, you will find the approach that resulted from the memo on that paragraph, which was circulated on Tuesday and which was the basis for our decision to visit the issue of the meaning of “significant” today. What you will find on page 25 is this: In the last paragraph you'll find the text that we had before. It is a vague recommendation, and it was because of its vagueness that some members felt we should be more precise, so as to give a better sense of direction to future governments on the definition of “significant adverse environmental effects”.

    Our researchers have paraphrased the paragraph that was before us on Tuesday, and this is what you'll find on the balance of page 25, in the form of those three simple bullets. The term “significant” has a framework, and the framework consists of these three specific bullets. I won't read them, because they are self-explanatory. If they're not, let's then have a good discussion.

    With this introductory monologue, I would like to invite comments on page 25.

    Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): I'll make a very brief comment, Mr. Chair. I would like to compliment our drafters and clerks for an excellent job. I think they've captured exactly the essence of what we had asked them to do. I'll leave my comments at that. I think it's very well written.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any other comments?

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would just ask people in the know to give me their feeling about trying to define “significant”, which people have been trying to do for a long time.

    The feeling is that unless we can be 100% sure this is all-encompassing rather than possibly limiting, maybe we are better off to use the way of wisdom and suggest that more study should be made to define the word “significant”, rather than arriving at a definition that could be restrictive in some ways. In other words, what we're saying here is what it is, and we have almost confined ourselves to these three particular provisos. Yet without going into the detail of it, I could suggest that perhaps there are a lot of ways whereby this may not be as broad as it could be. Are we better off to say we recommend that the federal government develop policies, criteria, and standards, etc., that will inform decision-makers in making the determination of what significance is? I just don't know.

    From what I have seen and discussed with people who are really experts in the field of assessment, I have a feeling this definition could be in many ways limiting.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Let me make sure the committee knows that the three bullets were provided by an expert—namely, Stephen Hazell, who has advised the committee in preparing this report.

    Secondly, while listening to Mr. Lincoln's precautionary words, I jotted a change on the fourth line to replace “in terms of”. The change might at least partially meet his words of caution. It would read:

...be defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to include at least the following factors:

    Mr. Lincoln, how would it be if we were to delete “in terms of the following factors” on the fourth line and replace it with “to include at least the following factors”? We establish at least a rock-bottom foundation, a minimum requirement, with the three bullets, but we don't exclude the possibility of additional provisos, as you call them, in the future.

    Madame Douglas would like to speak.

    Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): I would just remind members that there is already guidance from the agency to proponents about what “significant” means. It's not that there doesn't exist any guidance about it, but that if the standard is not in the statute, then groups wanting to challenge decisions that are made have no where to hang their hats. If you put a test for significance in, that makes it clear what yardstick is measuring proponents' decision-making, and it makes decisions more challengeable if they fall short of the standard we would like them to meet.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Let's take subsection 50(1), “Ministerial orders”:

Where the Minister refers a project to a mediator or a review panel...taking into account the implementation of any appropriate mitigation measures the project is not likely to cause any significant adverse environmental effects referred to....

This gives powers to the minister that are a pretty strong authority, leaving the minister the power to judge whether it is likely to cause any significant adverse environmental effects or not. When you define something, then unless you leave yourself a lot of leeway, the minister is confined to these three provisos, which could limit his or her powers.

Á  (1125)  

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: You won't if you alter it in the way Mr. Caccia has suggested.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, I think you definitely should at least alter it to say it will include but not be limited to, just so you don't box people in.

    The Chair: There is always a danger in definitions, of course, because you limit yourself, as you say. On the other hand, the world has to proceed with definitions in order to function in political and legal terms. We thought the three bullets, as suggested by Stephen Hazell, would be quite helpful in at least providing the foundation for the approach to “significant”.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chair? Include what you say, but also have another bullet or proviso saying that because of the importance in law of “significant”, which appears in so many sections—sections 20, 23, 37, and 50—the government ought to continue to study the question of significance, especially in light of a further review. In other words, show that we're not boxing ourselves in completely and that there could be ramifications that haven't hit us yet.

    The Chair: Yes, that's very helpful. And you're referring to subsection 50(1) as a good example, right?

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, subsection 50(1), but there are others I could refer to as well.

    The Chair: Yes, thank you.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): The only concern that I have about adding another bullet of that nature, Mr. Chairman, is that we are ensuring the incomes of overpriced lawyers from now to infinity—with the exception of Joe Comartin, of course.

    Sorry, Joe.

    I just wonder how much mud you would want to put into a bill. On these three bullets, I agree with your suggestion about “not limited to” or whatever you want to do with it on the fourth line. But if you inject mud into the bill, litigation you're going to get.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Did you raise your hand, Ms. Scherrer? You inadvertently did.

[English]

    Is there any further comment or any further input? If I understand the consensus that is emerging here, we should modify the fourth line and replace “in terms of” with “to include at least”, and then proceed with the text. There is then a suggestion by Mr. Lincoln to urge the government to continue to study the meaning of and to—

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —to develop policies and criteria regarding “significant”.

    The Chair: —to develop policies and criteria that will probably, sooner or later, become the object of.... When the next bill is prepared, “significant adverse environmental effects” will no doubt become the object of attention, so we could include that little sentence. It would be of assistance to the system.

    Do you have any other comments? If not, we could tackle chapter 5, “Conclusions”, in which we did not proceed beyond paragraph 5.1. We had a brief examination of paragraph 5.1 last time, but we didn't deal with the remaining paragraphs. The changes are underlined, as you know, and there are totally new paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9, and also a new paragraph 5.10 as well.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher): They only look like they're new, because one paragraph had three ideas in it and was split into three.

    The Chair: Yes, we broke it up. That's correct. Thank you.

    Are there any comments on chapter 5?

    Mr. Lincoln.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, in the conclusion, what we are trying to do in this report is prepare for the inaugural review that will occur in seven years, right? Shouldn't we put the question as to whether Bill C-9 has improved the performance of environmental assessment or not?

    The Chair: We may know that in a few years.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Exactly, so the exercise between now and the review should be to examine whether the changes in Bill C-9 are improving the performance of assessment or not, and whether or not the federal government should look at the whole area of self-assessment in the process of that. If we were going to challenge the government, maybe we could also have a question as to whether or not the present type of agency is what we need, or whether we need a more independent agency with experts from various departments.

    The Chair: Maybe that thought could be inserted in paragraph 5.2, perhaps following the sentence on page 63 that says, “But even with proposed amendments, Bill C-9 takes only modest steps towards a results-based and action-oriented approach.”

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, if we look at what the weakness of the lead-in to Bill C-9 was, it was that it was an internal study instead of being a sort of objective review by some independent body like the committee or something else. Couldn't we suggest that the government should commission, after a certain number of years—say, five years—an independent study to assess the performance of the new act, with the view that the seven-year review be used to conduct a fundamental restructuring of the federal EA process?

    The Chair: Madame Douglas.

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: I would just remind members that, at least as it stands, the committee's amendment to Bill C-9 was to make the seven-year review a parliamentary review. That would normally mean the form of the review is in this committee's hands.

    The Chair: That's the recommendation on page 62, right?

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: No, it's in Bill C-9.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Where is that, Kristen? Which recommendation is that?

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: It's not a recommendation, it's in Bill C-9. The committee amended Bill C-9.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is the government going to accept that?

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: I don't know. That's not a question for me.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: You just work here.

    Mr. Tim Williams: That's why we're waiting for report stage.

    The Chair: If you want to propose a sentence for the conclusion, then by all means, do it now. This is our opportunity. I don't know where you would insert it best. I was looking for a place, perhaps at the end of paragraph 5.2.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, maybe we could just carry on with...[Inaudible—Editor].

    The Chair: That is the last step before we go into the next item of business. I would rather conclude with this item now.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: On the lighter side, Mr. Chairman, I was reading paragraph 5.2 with respect to the notion of removing rhetoric and replacing it with admirable goals. I was just wondering if that might mean we would take away one of the major tools of our trade.

    That's on the lighter side, Mr. Chairman. I was just amused with the capturing of that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Perhaps what Mr. Lincoln is going to propose might fit between paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9, as an item by itself.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: They could always give you my text, but I don't think you'd like it.

    The Chair: We would conclude with paragraph 5.9, which would then become paragraph 5.10, since it begins with the word, “Finally.” What he was proposing a moment ago could follow paragraph 5.8 very well.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, might I suggest a different point?

    The Chair: In chapter 5? Sure.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I think this should go in either paragraph 5.2 or 5.3, but probably 5.2. It would be important for the committee to say we've lost—this is relative to the rest of the plan—some of the leading role that we have played in environmental assessment. The last five to seven years have in fact dropped us out of the top rankings. Witnesses have made this point when they have testified. We should make that point and put it in that context, so that when we go on to the rest of the text in chapter 5, it would be in that context.

    It's not only that we have lost our leading role, but the point we then make at the bottom of paragraph 5.2, that “Bill C-9 only takes modest steps towards a results-based and action-oriented approach.” It confirms that we're not moving ahead and probably are not even standing still, but are probably going backwards. We need to use some stronger language to put it in the context that we've lost a leading role in this field in relation to other countries.

    The Chair: We can insert a few words to that effect in the last sentence. I'm sure the team will find a way to do it.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Lincoln.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: These are just ideas.

    Kristen, could you....

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: It says:

The committee believes a key issue before the government is the fundamental nature of the environmental assessment process. The seven year review should examine whether changes under Bill C-9 have improved environmental assessment performance or not. And if not, the idea and process of self-assessment should be re-examined.

    That would be followed by a recommendation:

Prior to and in preparation for the seven year review by the parliamentary committee, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development be asked to review the performance of Bill C-9.

    The Chair: It sounds all right. The only question is whether it should then be fitted into chapter 4 rather than chapter 5, because it has a recommendation. It should become a recommendation that follows paragraph 4.78.

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: Yes, because that's where we're talking about self-assessment.

    The Chair: Would committee members like to hear it again?

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And there's still yours, which can be included, of course.

    The Chair: Would you like to read it again?

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: Once again, it says:

The committee believes a key issue before the government is the fundamental nature of the environmental assessment process. The seven year review should examine whether changes under Bill C-9 have improved environmental assessment performance or not. And if not, the idea and process of self-assessment should be re-examined.

    And the recommendation would read:

Prior to and in preparation for the seven year review by the parliamentary committee, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development be asked to review the performance of Bill C-9.

    It seems to me that this would maybe be a separate section at the end.

    The Chair: Or paragraph 4.79. Anyway, we can discuss where it should fit in.

    Let's now hear some thoughts.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, just pursuant to something you said at the last meeting, which was to look at the whole reporting structure under the state of the environment, Mr. Lincoln's phrasing is really in keeping with developing those kinds of tools not necessarily just to focus on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but to focus on sustainable development as it is achieved through any relevant legislation.

    In terms of finding the right place to put that, I think it's actually quite a nice phrase for summing things up. It's in keeping with what I hope will be the continuing work of the committee in the area of water quality, in the area of air quality, and in the area of the performance of the act with respect to sustainable development. I don't find it inconsistent with the committee's role or where the committee would like to go.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I think we will have to insert it in chapter 4 because it has a recommendation style, and leave it out of chapter 5, which is concluding. It may be paragraph 4.79. It may be the one that concludes chapter 4 somehow.

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: There is quite a lot of text in section 4.2, in paragraphs 4.12 to 4.14, about self-assessment. The recommendations that are already at the end of that section have to do with the idea of a permitting system, but this is a related issue. It would flow in that section, where we talk about self-assessment. The commissioner's role is also discussed in that section.

    The Chair: So you are also recommending to insert it in chapter 4?

    Ms. Kristen Douglas: Yes.

    The Chair: Is that all right with you?

    An hon. member: Sure.

    The Chair: Are there any other comments on chapter 5, in addition to the one made by Mr. Comartin that has been duly noted for paragraph 5.2? If not, I would conclude this discussion and simply repeat that we will have a motion to report back to the House once we know the amendments to Bill C-9, so that we will be in harmony with those changes, if any.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Just for information purposes, the long-term legislative calendar that we received from our House leader at our caucus meeting showed Bill C-9 as being tentatively scheduled for the end of this month in the House.

    The Chair: Good, and usually the report stage amendments are published a week or so beforehand, so we'll know by then. So I thank the members of the committee very much for their input and their good advice.

    I would like to devote perhaps the next item to our future and to the thorough discussion that took place on January 28. On that occasion, a number of comments were made on a variety of subjects and preferences. There were interventions about Kyoto. There were interventions about water. There were interventions about the state of the environment and the resumption of the type of public report that gave Canadians an accounting of the environment's status every year. When Mr. Savoy was there, we talked about the lack of pertinence of this committee, and he made a pitch for water. Mr. Savoy was also echoed by Mr. Herron on water. So as your chair, let me perhaps put forward the following reflections.

    First, on Kyoto, which was raised by several members, the office of the minister has kindly indicated that the minister is willing to come here before the committee to answer questions, if given the necessary notice. It seems to me that an examination of the Kyoto accord at this stage would be far too premature. It has to be implemented. It could probably be measured and examined a few years from now, like any other form of legislation or international convention.

    The points that were raised by some members on that occasion on January 28 were such that they require a reply, particularly those points that addressed the auto industry. Together with Mr. Dhaliwal, the minister has published some substantive replies, but it will not harm us at all to hear them here, and also to hear the minister answering questions from the members of this committee. If this committee is of that intention, all we have to do is notify the representatives from his office of the desire that he appear before the committee, and he will understand and be glad to oblige.

    Then the question arises about what we could do next as a committee in terms of our work. On that, I would take to heart the suggestion made by Madame Kraft Sloan, namely that we do invest a few weeks or perhaps a month or two—I don't know how long it would take, but not very long—and invite officials from the Department of the Environment mainly, but maybe also from the Department of Health and the Department of Natural Resources, to appear before us on the topic of resuming the publication of the reports on the status of the environment that have been dormant since 1995 due to budgetary reasons. In doing that, we could produce a slim, crisp, short report that would indicate our conclusions to the House.

    Whether we see the desirability of resuming it or whether we don't, we have first to hear the experts and officials who were involved in this production and who may have thoughts about the subject. We may then determine what types of recommendations we want to write.

    As you know, it was a report that was fairly thick. It was well written, it was informative, and it had good distribution both in printed form and in electronic form, and it did have a fairly good readership. They tell me it was a good document for both public and political education.

Á  (1150)  

    Following that, and if you agree, of course, I would then take up the suggestions that came from various sides of this committee. We should discuss how we want to tackle water, which is an immense subject. At the consumer end, we don't have much jurisdiction, but upstream, we certainly have a considerable amount of jurisdiction as a federal government.

    I remember Mr. Herron making a reference to the report by Peter Pearse, from Vancouver. This report was actually commissioned by the then Liberal government in the early 1980s. It contained several recommendations, very few of which have been acted upon, if any.

    Also, in all fairness, we must recognize the fact that we did have a water boundaries bill before us a year ago. It was before the House and finally approved the export of water. Nevertheless, there are recommendations in here that are waiting for attention.

    And there are also new issues emerging. In the Globe and Mail yesterday, an article by a fellow named Martin Mittelstaedt reports about the finding of traces of drugs in water in various Canadian centres.

    So we could tackle that project by first having a good session with the author of this report, Peter Pearse. We can invite him here and hear him out, in a month or so, about how we should launch a water study on the part of this committee, in a manner that would somehow reflect the issues of our times and generate a new set of recommendations, either picking them up from here or from new ideas that may emerge as a result of the study.

    I've outlined to you three courses of action that go in different directions and in sequence to each other. We could start next week and go for the balance of the month on the report on the state of the environment. That will take us into March probably, and maybe into part of April. At the same time, we could invite the minister to address Kyoto and to answer questions in committee. We could always find an appropriate slot.

    When we finish the status-of-the-environment report, we could then have a good session on water with the former commissioner. It is absolutely essential that we are very clear in our minds as to how we want to tackle that subject. It is an immense subject, and we don't want to go on a safari and not come back for a couple of years, because then it will be a bit too late. We have to be very careful and very selective.

    I apologize for the long monologue. I invite comments, beginning with Mr. Comartin first and Mr. Reed next.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Just with regard to Kyoto, I think it would be of more benefit to the committee if the minister were to come after the budget was released, so that we can see what the outcome of that is and not have to address whatever issues are dealt with in the budget. We can then just address the ones that aren't.

    I just came from the fisheries committee today, and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and members of the International Joint Commission were there. What's coming out, both in some of the reports that she has done and in the current reports that they are issuing for both Canada and the United States, is the lack of a coordinated effort on dealing with the issue of invasive species. In the material they're presenting, the Minister of the Environment, at least in Canada, would appear to need to be the lead minister.

    I believe this committee has a role to play in ensuring that this gets moved along. I would therefore like to see that put on the agenda at some point. The recommendation, Mr. Chair, was that the three key departments are Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport. At some point, then, we may even have to look at asking all three ministers to come here to explain if they are in fact going to move on these recommendations.

    The Chair: Thank you. If we go into water issues, we will definitely have to call the IJC in any event, and this is a very good point that you are making.

    Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, all of these issues are most commendable for us to study. What comes home to me is that, in the end, in order for us to have an impact on what happens, there has to be a major raising of public consciousness or public awareness. I'm concerned about how we communicate with the public and how we get messages out.

    For instance, on the subject of water, water has been taken for granted for a long time in Canada and has been allowed to deteriorate over time, yet public awareness or individual awareness is not really there, in my view. It's one thing for government to be aware, and there are things that government should do. But there are also other things that citizens have a responsibility to do to improve water quality and maintain it.

    It's said that the equivalent of five Exxon Valdez tankers is deposited into drains every year in the United States. If you want to talk about citizen responsibility for water quality, then, that sort of thing is....

    We depend on groundwater aquifers where I live. The aquifers are receding, yet in the minds of municipal people and so on, the solution seems to be that all we need to do is drop another pipe into Lake Ontario and we'll suck up whatever we need. We'll then put the effluents back into Lake Ontario and depend on dilution to look after them.

    So I want to try to somehow find a way to communicate with citizens about citizen responsibility here, and not just in water quality, although water quality is probably one of the big ones.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, in general, I would agree with you in terms of the three areas you've isolated, and certainly on the minister's point of view on the implementation of Kyoto, how it's going, and what he foresees. After the budget is when we may get some guidance there.

    In answer to Mr. Reed's comments, I would think the status-of-the-environment report would be an opportunity to involve the public and show them, raise their level of interest, and so on. Obviously, we would only support publishing such a thing if the public was in fact going to use it. That would be the question.

    On the area of water, Mr. Reed, I think you've also pointed out how gigantic this subject is.

    As for your suggestion that Dr. Pearse might help us to focus, Mr. Chair, we would definitely require some focus or the safari would indeed be very long.

    The fourth issue that I would like to see addressed—and you know it's kind of a pet thing with me—is air quality on our borders and the transborder situation. That would apply to southern Ontario as much as it applies to the Fraser Valley. Somewhere, we could isolate how our government deals with that. Of course, I have the example of the Sumas, where I don't believe the government is acting at all. It's just rolling over and playing dead when it comes to air quality. Obviously, I'd like to see the same rules apply in southern Ontario that apply in B.C. or Alberta or wherever.

    If we really were specific about transborder air, that would be an issue we could focus on. A lot of people are pretty interested in that, because most Canadians live pretty close to that border.

    The Chair: Thank you. I made good note of your remarks, Mr. Mills, and you're quite right. The question is whether or not the public would read the report. If it is well prepared, though, it could become a very effective instrument to mobilize public opinion, very much so.

    Are there any further comments?

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am not aware of what the format was for the state-of-the-environment documentation. However, it seems to me that we shouldn't get into the same kinds of processes as the Auditor General did through the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in the Auditor General's department.

    It shouldn't be a comprehensive audit that we're starting to get into. It should be something that is very hands-on. It's almost a “State of the Environment for Dummies”, if you will, so that people can understand how we are on the intake of a whole number of programs, from provincial and from responsible authorities' perspectives in those fields of air quality, water quality, Kyoto, and those types of issues.

    We should try to put a strategy in place based on the input that we get maybe from the Auditor General and maybe from the various associated ministers. It's not just the Minister of the Environment. It would include Natural Resources, it would include Fisheries and Oceans....

    An hon. member: The Department of Health.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: We should attempt to identify those things at the beginning. The first part of the process would be to get intake in terms of what kinds of process we want to follow and who we are going to consult with. We could then use that process, under state-of-the-environment reporting, to evaluate and provide information on the various issues of water quality, air quality, Kyoto, updating sustainable development, and so on.

    If we don't do that, we don't have any edges around the committee's deliberations. They're just going to be a continuous on-and-on and a repetition of information that we all have. I think we want it to be more than that, so I would suggest that we give consideration to the design of the process and then use that design, under state-of-the-environment reporting, to apply it to the various issues.

    I don't know whether that makes sense, Mr. Chairman, but I think we need a methodology here, and it would be to design the methodology that would not be a large component, but would be who we would consult to do that. We could then use it for the committee's deliberations.

    The Chair: Thank you. It certainly makes sense. You have described the essence of past reports. We'll ask the clerk if it is at all possible to find copies of the last issue, so that the members of the committee have an idea as to how it was produced and how it was designed. When the officials appear, there will then be a more effective exchange.

    Mr. Savoy.

    Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Talking of pet projects or pet interests, as Bob said, I assume this will be in the state-of-the-environment report that we're looking at. Something I've had great concern about for many years has been site contamination and the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites not in terms of the legislation but in terms of the report cards on where we are and where we're going. One was done as recently as 1997.

    The Chair: By whom?

    Mr. Andy Savoy: I think Environment Canada came out with one in 1996 or 1997, or right around there.

    The Chair: And the title was...?

    Mr. Andy Savoy: It was Contaminated Sites in Canada or something along those lines. It was specifically on contaminated sites as brownfields. As we all know, brownfields are contaminated sites that can be reclaimed and remediated. They pose an excellent environmental as well as economic opportunity in many of our major cities.

    I'm not sure where the proper place for this is. I assume it's in the state-of-the-environment report. Would we investigate that as well?

    The Chair: We will see. This will be a decision of the committee once we hear what the officials have to say.

    On brownfields, you are probably already aware of the fact that the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment produced a report on that topic alone two days ago. You may want to have a look at it first, because they seem almost to have quantified the benefits of dealing with brownfields.

    Mr. Lincoln.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The last report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development touched on contaminated sites. That was the subject, and it could be a point of reference too.

    By the way, the state-of-the-environment report had its own staff within Environment Canada, but that staff unfortunately was cancelled. It cost $1 million a year. We lost it because of $1 million a year, which was very tragic.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: At that time, Mr. Lincoln was the parliamentary secretary. It was all his fault.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's right. Very sadly, you're right.

    The Chair: We'll have to correct that situation.

    Are there any other further comments? No? Then the clerk will notify the necessary people and we will start with them as soon as possible.

    Let me also remind you that Johanne Gélinas, your commissioner, will be before us on....

    The Clerk of the Committee: She's supposed to be here Wednesday, but we might have an open spot on Tuesday. I'll see if we can reschedule.

    The Chair: So it's next Tuesday, possibly.

    The Clerk: Tuesday or Wednesday.

    The Chair: It will be Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

    As some of you will recall, she requested to appear before the committee because she wants to discuss long-term plans flowing from the Johannesburg summit, so as to alert the entire departmental system about what is expected from them in the implementation of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. Her request is a very fine initiative on her part, and we will hear her out on what she specifically has to recommend.

    With that, I thank the members of the committee.

    The meeting is adjourned.