ENVI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 1, 2003
| Á | 1110 |
 |
The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1115 |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher) |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1120 |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
| Á | 1140 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1145 |
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1150 |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, May 1, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1110)
[Translation]
The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I am very happy to see you again. Today's agenda is very simple.
[English]
We have four paragraphs to examine as modified paragraphs to the report, which is almost ready to be tabled in the House, on the ideal Environmental Assessment Act of the future.
Some members of the committee have indicated their wish or hope that we could conclude by 12 o'clock, and I will be glad to comply if the discussions will make it possible.
The text for the changes has been circulated by the clerk on two different sheets, I believe, and they are before you. The paragraphs are numbered. They are paragraphs 4.16 and 4.21, as prepared by the researcher, Comrade Williams, and the other ones, prepared by Comrade Caccia, are paragraphs 2.3 and 4.63.
For the sake of orderly sequence--
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Could we have your amendments?
The Chair: All right, we will see to it that the other sheet is... Apparently this is missing.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Could you read those again, Chairman, please?
The Chair: Yes. Apparently it was sent to members' offices. One is 4.16, and on the back 4.21, en anglais and français, I hope, and then 2.3 and 4.62.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.
The Chair:
So I will take you through the first proposed modified paragraph, 2.3, which starts with a positive comment that the committee felt the goals of Bill C-9 were laudable and that the bill should improve the process as a whole. The paragraph goes on to say the following:
| The amendments made to the bill by the Committee, particularly with regard to improving meaningful public participation, would have helped to achieve these goals. Four government motions, however, have undone some of the Committee's work in this regard. |
Maybe it should say “four government motions at report stage”; that could be inserted.
| The Committee voted--twice (first on Motion KS-20, then on Government's motion G-23)--for a 30-day comment period after the posting of information including screening reports. The screening report is the pivotal document in screening-level assessments because it contains... |
etc., etc. It concludes as follows:
| Instead, the government has limited the effect of KS-20 by eliminating screening reports from its ambit and reducing the comment period to 15 days. Therefore, public input in decisions in the vast majority of these environmental assessments will be limited. |
Are there any comments or suggestions? If not, we could adopt it. This is a fairly factual description of what happened.
Mr. Roy Bailey: No, we support this.
The Chair: You support it. Fine. That is done.
Á (1115)
Then we move to 4.16, which is on the other sheet, for the sake of orderly sequence. It reads, “Not only has departmental compliance with CEAA requirements been unimpressive,”--and “departmental” means all departments--“but also there is no enforcement power under the Act.” The act grants no powers, despite the effort by Mr. Harold with an amendment that did not pass, unfortunately.
| Bill C-9 would provide additional duties to the Agency to promote and monitor compliance, but the new provisions still do not include penalties for non-compliance. Even expanding the Agency's duties may be of little value, as the new duties are unaccompanied by powers that would permit those duties to be effectively fulfilled. According to Robert Gibson...the lack of enforcement provisions has made the achievement of CEAA's objectives difficult |
Are there any comments or questions on 4.16? Are you in agreement with the text? I see some nodding, so I assume it is acceptable. It is again a description of what could have happened in committee but didn't, even though it was desirable.
Paragraph 4.16 is adopted.
Then we move to 4.21 on the same sheet, which reads as follows:
| A related improvement would be to make it an offence for a federal department or proponent to proceed with a project without an EA permit, or in breach of the terms and conditions of the permit. Such a permitting system would allow the Agency to scrutinize departmental compliance with the legislation, helping to ensure that projects do not proceed unless all EA requirements were met. |
Shouldn't it be “are met”? Shouldn't it be written in the present tense?
I've been informed that since this is a description of an ideal world as it may unfold in future, “were met” is correct.
Are we in agreement?
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I have an editing question. We're on 4.21, which opens with “a related improvement would be to make it an offence...”. Okay.
The Chair: This is a recommendation for future legislators examining future bills on the same subject.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Is this a replacement of paragraph 4.21?
The Chair: No, this 4.21 is the new text. It replaces the old text.
Mr. Gary Lunn: This is new text, not additional text. Correct? Okay, that makes sense.
The Chair: That's correct. I see some nodding, so I assume it is acceptable. Agreed. Thank you.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I realize it is a replacement, but I thought what we were trying to do--obviously this is going back a number of weeks, if not a couple of months--I thought we were trying to break paragraph 4.21 in half and use the existing wording for the first recommendation. This wording was going to go in between the first recommendation and the second recommendation.
The Chair: Yes, but it still fits in the flow.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So we're going to remove the old paragraph 4.21 completely and replace it with this new 4.21(a).
The Chair: There is no (a).
Mr. Joe Comartin: It will be paragraph 4.21 now.
The Chair: It's a new paragraph 4.21 to be inserted on page 30.
Madame Douglas.
Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): My recollection, and maybe what you're referring to, is that in the last set of changes there was a recommendation put in after 4.19 and then a subsequent one after 4.21. There are two recommendation ideas in that section now. That was a change the committee made previously.
This last change is just to reflect the changes necessary to the language because of the changes made at report stage. It's not a substance change so much as an edit because of the changes made at report stage.
The Chair: The text is being adjusted to reflect the changes made at the report stage, as agreed upon.
All right, thank you.
Then we go to paragraph 4.62, which is self-explanatory. It indicates what the committee believes in and it deals with government motions 12 and 21. The key part is the second half of this paragraph, which reads as follows:
| Panel reviews also have the added advantage of encouraging the use of independent scientific and technical expertise. The Committee acknowledges concerns about the length of time that panel reviews can take |
--which was a point that was made frequently by the agency--
| but suggests that approaches to ensure more timely reviews by panels are available and feasible, keeping in mind the importance of avoiding duplication of effort with other EA processes. |
I'm told that actually it should read number 4.63 rather than number 4.62.
Then the text of the recommendation is in the following three lines. I hope this is all right with you, and it would go into the report as suggested.
Any comments? If not, I will assume it is accepted. Thank you.
Á (1120)
Mr. Gary Lunn: I'd like to comment that it's the exact same recommendation.
The Chair: Yes, that's right. The words are the same.
So that concludes this part of the meeting, but there is another part, as outlined in the order of the day, in which I have to religiously ask all these questions.
You have the questions before you and I will number them from one to five as follows: 1. “That the committee adopt...”; 2. “That the chair be authorized...”; 3. “That pursuant to Standing Order 108...”; 4. “That the committee request a government response...”; and 5. “That the chair be authorized...”. I will call each number now again, one by one.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Are we required to move our dissenting opinions, or is that already done?
The Chair: Yes, I think you could do it now. Sure.
I've read your dissenting opinion very carefully, and I'm a bit confused from reading it. Evidently one has to reach a level of intellectual sophistication, which I haven't yet. I'm a bit puzzled by certain paragraphs.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm a little discouraged by that comment, Mr. Chairman, because I in fact am in agreement with some of the proposals that have been put forward; I'm not sure where that takes me. I think you've raised some good points, really.
The Chair: So as we call these motions, one of them will include the dissenting report, as I understand it.
Item number one, “That the committee adopt the draft report, as amended...”, etc., etc., should that carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Item number two, “That the Chair be authorized to make such editorial and typographical changes as necessary, without changing the substance of the report”. Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Joe Comartin: With regard to my dissenting, the draft bill is not numbered properly, just to advise the clerk of it.
The Chair: Yes, this will be fixed. I'm told this will be corrected.
Mr. Joe Comartin: And there's no change in the content; it's just the numbering.
The Chair: There is no change in the content, I'm told. So that will be done. Thank you for raising it.
Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Item number three, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108, the committee authorize the printing of the brief, Dissenting Opinions, to be submitted in two official languages to the clerk”.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Good.
Item number four, “That the committee request a government response according to Standing Order 109”.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, before you move that, can I ask a question with respect to process?
In my experience--and it definitely is different in the parliamentary experience--you're just going to have to give me the benefit of the doubt here. You have a report that we are presenting at the same time as we have our bill before the House, which will then go on to the Senate.
The Senate ostensibly is going to review our bill. If this is presented to the House, there may be conflicting issues in this report that the Senate hasn't had the advantage of having had hearings and so on. In fact, there may be things we may not want the Senate to do that are in our report that are going to be drawn into question by this report.
My question is this, Mr. Chairman. My experience has been that when something has been passed by a committee and another document comes along, and where we're asking for the government's response, in the past we haven't approved the report to go ahead. We've kept it at committee, asked the government to respond, tested the validity of some of the concerns raised in minority reports and other ones, and then we've sent it on to Parliament.
I'd just like you to educate me on this, because I really don't understand the process here, and I'm not sure we had a complete discussion on that process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Á (1125)
The Chair: The clerk has a reply on the process.
The Clerk of the Committee: It's a process that's been established by the House for many years since reform. There was a point when reports were tabled and the minister didn't have to respond. That standing order was put in specifically for that, so the committee could go back after it.
Now, we have no power over what the Senate does or doesn't do. Whatever the Senate does still has to be approved by the House. If they make amendments, it still has to go back to the House, so you still have the final say.
Mr. Alan Tonks: May I just respond to that first point, Mr. Chairman? The point made by the Canadian Alliance on the integrity of the committee system is that the committee has a good sense of all of the issues before it. The Canadian Alliance makes the point that this committee in some ways undoes and suggests an undoing of what the committee's recommendations were. They take exception to that on that basis.
My concern is that the Senate has the advantage, if you will, of a report that this committee really didn't have. We went ahead and put the legislation forward in good faith. I just don't understand the sequencing of all that.
Anyway, I guess it's because of my inexperience with this system.
The Clerk: It's the legislative process.
The Chair: Let me clarify this. The report does nothing. The report is written with the view to the future and expresses the policy direction that ought to be taken when the next bill comes down the system, seven years or so from now.
Secondly, the report, if anything, will allow the senators to have an overview, which they may not have when examining a bill without seeing the report. The report will give them the same kind of guidance it gives the House of Commons and the Government of Canada for future reports. But the bill, per se, is not going to be affected by the report as I see it. It's a study of the broader subject, which Bill C-9 does not cover. It doesn't undo anything, as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, we'll take your intervention and study it.
Mr. Lunn.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just following up in that vein, you made some comments with respect to our minority report.
The point I was trying to make, following up on the parliamentary secretary, is that we as a committee, as a collective whole, just did a report, and we passed or rejected it. I didn't agree, as probably the chair didn't agree. Although he's not able, in the position as chair, I'm sure he agreed with some of the things we did and some of the things we didn't do on the bill itself when we did the clause-by-clause. Having said that, the committee as a whole decided that's what we should do. When I read the report of what we're doing now, it flies in the face of that.
That's what I was trying to reflect, that we said this, but in the very same breath we're saying this. It's fine to say “Well, this is for the future”. The reality is we're dealing in today. A committee will deal in the future when they get to it.
Having said all that, with the highest respect for you and your fairness in parliamentary procedure, and with respect for other individuals, I'm prepared to just let it go on division, because we've done all this work. I just put those comments on the record.
Thank you.
Á (1130)
The Chair: Fair enough. Thank you.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm not prepared at this point to not try something that I think is more in keeping with the spirit of how the committee deliberated on it. I'm going to move, if I may--you can give me instruction on this, also--on this clause that the instructions you have been given be subject to the committee receiving a government response to the report, and that no action be taken with respect to presenting the report to the House at this time.
The Chair: The motion is that the committee request a government response to the report pursuant to Standing Order 109.
Did you want to amend this item?
Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes. My amendment is.... I agree with the first three in terms of the direction, but I would prefer.... We're in a time lapse situation here. If we're asking for a government response, then let's not go ahead with putting the whole thing on. Let's get the government response. Let's have the discussion in its entirety, with some of the substantive issues that have been raised.
The Chair: How can you get a government response without tabling it? How can you do that? You can't get the response without tabling it.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Well, that's why I need your direction on this, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes, so I'm giving you direction. In order to get a government response, you need to table it.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. That's the way it works, eh?
The Chair: We will have a vote on item four.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Now we will move to item five.
(Motion agreed to on division)
Á (1135)
The Chair: There are some announcements here to be made coming from various efforts by the clerk and myself about witnesses. The calling of witnesses is not easy these days because of heavy schedules on the part of ministers, but Mr. Dhaliwal has agreed to appear before us on May 8 on the Kyoto implementation.
Then, on May 15, on the Auditor General's report, 2003, chapter 7, which has some devastating comments to make on the Department of National Defence, we will have the Honourable John McCallum.
Then we are negotiating with the CEC, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, in Montreal, and its present pro tem director, Victor Shantora. The clerk has just confirmed his appearance on May 27. This is the commission that runs parallel to NAFTA, as you know. And he's appearing before us to discuss their report entitled Taking Stock. The clerk will make sure you receive it. It is an interesting report, and it certainly ought to become part of our collective knowledge and understanding.
Then, finally, hallelujah, we managed to get an agreement with the IJC for an appearance on their part on Thursday, June 5. The witnesses will be two. For the IJC, it will be the Honourable Herb Gray. And then we thought that Professor Thomas, from the University of Guelph, has an interesting study that relates to the Great Lakes on invasive species--zebra mussels, to mention just one. So we'll have them both at the same time, as a combined presence.
So that's how it is slowly shaping up. Keep in mind that we are working on a possible appearance by the Minister of Finance and also on a possible appearance by the Minister of Industry, both on the Kyoto implementation.
Before I make further announcements, Mr. Mills and Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I know how difficult it is to get ministers. Obviously I would like to be here on May 8 for Mr. Dhaliwal on Kyoto, as I have a great interest in Kyoto. I'm a keynote speaker on Kyoto that evening at a university, and I won't be able to be here because it's in western Canada. Is there any way this day could be changed?
The Chair: Well, we'll have to ask the clerk, because he has been negotiating.
The Clerk: Mr. Dhaliwal's representative is at the back of the room, so I'm sure he's taking that down.
Mr. Bob Mills: That might be a reason for him to come.
The Clerk: We had him booked at another time already, and this is the second move for him.
Mr. Gary Lunn: This is the Thursday, correct?
The Chair: Yes, it's a Thursday, May 8.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Is it possible his officials could check to see if he's available on May 6?
The Chair: They will take note and we will see. The Tuesday is a difficult day because it's cabinet. We could perhaps try to do it in the afternoon rather than the morning slot on Tuesday or on Wednesday, May 7. So we'll take that into account.
Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, both would be fine.
The Chair: Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm surprised at the IJC one on June 5. I think there's a conference in Windsor on invasive species at that time. We might want to double check that. I'm almost certain it's that--
The Chair: We will double check.
The Clerk: I have an e-mail from them confirming the day, although we've confirmed three or four dates with Mr. Gray and they've had to postpone because of other things. Maybe this hasn't been pointed out to him so well. I'll give them a ring when I get back to the office.
The Chair: Mr. Tonks.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chair, if it isn't possible for our colleague to be there, and I don't know on the timing on this, but it's important that it be understood that Mr. Dhaliwal chairs, or is co-chair, for the committee on the implementation of Kyoto and doesn't report through a committee as such. Him coming before this committee is really important, because there were some fundamental concerns that were raised with respect to the implementation of Kyoto through the Auditor General, the commissioner for sustainable development, and so on. I would be interested to hear some of the concerns.
If our colleague isn't able to be there, even if we could have a preliminary meeting prior to the minister coming, we could collate some of the concerns and have an idea of what we want to ask him. Whether that would be helpful in terms of at least asking the questions you would like to ask, having an airing of them, a venting, we should not necessarily be in agreement, but we should be in agreement to ask questions regardless of where they come from.
It could give the committee an opportunity to formulate its viewpoint with respect to what it expects from Mr. Dhaliwal and the committee on the implementation. It's just a suggestion. I would be interested to hear some response to that.
The Chair: Mr. Mills.
Mr. Bob Mills: The day before yesterday I was at the industry committee. The deputy minister of heavy emissions was there, along with some other officials--
Some hon members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bob Mills: Heavy emissions, yes, that's his title. He's the deputy minister of heavy emissions.
The first question I asked was “Who's your boss?” His answer was “Of course, Mr. Dhaliwal.” Then I said “What about the PMO committee, which is chaired by Mr. Vanclief? Mr. Vanclief is in effect your boss, isn't he?” He didn't like that question very much.
We proceeded then, and the chairman, Mr. Lastewka, was very willing to let me continue my questions for some 15 minutes of these officials. At the end I think government members carried on from there to voice their complete unhappiness with the answers that we were not getting on Kyoto and its implementation.
For example, how do Canadians get to access the $1.7 billion that's in the budget? Because members on all sides have had people approaching them, saying they have this invention and they think it's great, but they need cash to get it going. And even though we have the chairman who accepts these things, again, he had no answers as to how they were going to do this.
There are a lot of serious questions about this implementation. Those three experts who were before the industry committee had absolutely no answers. It was extremely frustrating for all members there.
I think we need to go after Mr. Dhaliwal the same way and say come on, you guys, this thing has been ratified and now it has to be implemented. What are you doing? What is your organization doing? It's to the advantage of us all to do that. That's why I really would like to be there, because those are the questions.
In industry in the provincial governments, and I won't carry on much longer, Mr. Chair, they are saying the government is now setting their target at 140 megatonnes, not 240 megatonnes, as agreed to. How come? We are crediting 80 megatonnes for clean air credits with the U.S. All right, guys, it's fine if you're doing that. The only problem is that the EU says you can't do it and you're not going to implement Kyoto, then. So what is the answer to that?
These guys fumbled around about the idea that there should be credits for clean air. If you give them to Canada then you have to give them to Europe for their natural gas coming from Russia. See, we really need to focus on these kinds of specific questions and we need answers.
So that's why I didn't want to hear June 8, because, like I say, I've committed to this thing for months and months now. Canadians out there, it's guaranteed, in your ridings and mine, are asking these questions.
Á (1140)
The Chair: It's nice to hear such a strong religious commitment to the Kyoto implementation on the part of Mr. Mills.
Mr. Bob Mills: I want answers.
The Chair: We congratulate you, yes.
Mr. Szabo, briefly.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think there's any question about the importance of the discussion with the minister, but we have actually the three ministers who are important here. The synergies between them I think are also important, when you consider we've seen Minister Vanclief, and we have Minister Anderson and Mr. Dhaliwal. It strikes me that if this is important enough, even one meeting with one minister may be a little frustrating, because we may not be able to explore some things that come up.
I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if there is another forum that would be better arranged, maybe one that would involve all three ministers. Maybe it could be a dinner meeting and an evening session, a round table we could all commit to the date of, and we could examine what those synergies might be and find out, maybe get a good start to the process, because I suspect that one meeting with one of those ministers will not be the last meeting.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo, it's an excellent idea, and it would certainly achieve a considerable amount of good discussion, but from past experience to find one evening in which three ministers are available at the same time is almost like squaring the circle. So we would be chasing that elusive goal for a long time, and possibly not even achieve it.
I think it is better here. There is a recorded system. There are questions and answers. The members are available during the day. They also plan events in the evening for other purposes. So I think we'll stick to this approach for the time being.
May I also draw to your attention that we are planning, for those who are fanatics of sewage treatment facilities, like myself, a visit on May 29 to the Ottawa installation. That is a very worthwhile exercise, believe me. We visited the water purification plant a year ago, some of us at least. This is part of the same scheme, because for those who have done it in the past it's always good to be brought up to date to the latest technologies that they apply to see how it is done in this part of the country, and to take it from there. That will be arranged by bus and it is a short driving distance of 20 minutes or so.
Mr. Bailey.
Á (1145)
Mr. Roy Bailey: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
This is a little different concern that I have. As you know, everyone on this committee knows, there's a bill under discussion before the House, the First Nations Governance Act. My feeling out there in the country where I've been, almost from coast to coast, is that this is a key bill for them. The people are very much opposed to the governance bill, although it doesn't make the bill wrong or right.
I get the feeling that if the bill is passed, they're going to take a bill such as our bill and the section on incorporation of aboriginal perspectives, in which we have aimed for cooperation among them.... That could be their reaction. That would hit more than one bill and make it very difficult for us to proceed without the position we are now in with the aboriginal people.
I mention this as a word of caution to the committee because that well could become a reality. We should think about that, because if it did become a reality, we may have to do some rewording of the bill. I'm not sure about that, but it could make it a very awkward situation for us. I wanted to bring that to our attention.
The Chair: Yes. That's very good of you, and it's certainly worth keeping in mind. We'll see how events evolve. Thank you.
I have two more brief announcements. One, there is a conference on the St. Lawrence River ecosystem in Cornwall, May 13 to 15. The keynote speaker is Marq de Villiers, who also wrote a book, and it is a perspective on the river. Time permitting, it's certainly an event that one would like to attend. It is in Cornwall. It may be very worth your while. I will ask the clerk to circulate this notice. I should have done it some weeks ago, but somehow I didn't.
You will recall Elizabeth Dowdeswell, finally. She appeared on behalf of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization before this committee. This morning, or yesterday, this report came from that organization. It is in your office, I hope, I suspect. That came from the clerk. It's entitled From Dialogue to Decision. You may want to have a look at it to refresh your memory. She was before us as a witness one month ago.
Finally, you will recall the meeting we had with Environment Canada and Statistics Canada about the publication of the resurrection of a report that was phased out in 1996, I believe, on the state of the environment. Apparently that group in Statistics Canada and Environment Canada are putting together a specific recommendation for the fall. As I understand it, we're very likely to hear from them in October, when they will have a specific recommendation for not the resumption of the state of the environment report, but a newly designed, revised approach.
In the meantime, we will have to rely on this, which you all have, the human activity and the environment report. Also, we should mention the NPRI--the national pollutant release inventory--annual release. Yes. It's a terrific report. You should go through it.
Á (1150)
[Translation]
This report is available in both official languages. It is an Environment Canada publication.
[English]
It gives, industry by industry, the tonnage of emissions. Also it gives projections from year to year. It shows where there are improvements, where there are not.
In arsenic, for instance, there is a very sharp decline in emissions attributed to the closing of certain mines, but then there is a phenomenal jump in emissions of lead, something like 140% plus last year, compared to the previous year.
So have a look at these things, because these are very important indicators for your work, for your political activity, etc.
The national pollutant release inventory, NPRI--c'est ça. Have a look in it. It is covered in the latest Gallon newsletter, those of you who receive it, who subscribe to it. It is an excellent environmental newsletter.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Szabo, last item.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I want to confirm to committee members that since the last time the environment committee met, the procedure and House affairs committee did table a report changing membership of the committee. I'm now a permanent member of this committee. Ms. Kraft Sloan has been taken off as a permanent member.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Does that mean our behaviour must change?
Mr. Bob Mills: We didn't get to vote on it.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Don't we have an initiation for new members?
The Chair: We've always considered you spiritually as a member of this committee, Mr. Szabo, and we're glad to welcome you.
The meeting is adjourned.