ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 7, 1997

• 0910

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members, the first item you have on your agenda is the election of a chair.

[Translation]

I am ready to receive nominations for this position.

[English]

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): On a point of order, as we will be voting for chair and vice-chair, I would hope this committee would consider the merits of a secret ballot, as opposed to an open ballot.

The Clerk: Does the committee wish to have a secret ballot?

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, it would seem to me that motion or that suggestion is out of order. We're here to elect a chair and that's our principal order of business here today.

The Clerk: Normally the clerk can receive motions only for the election of a chair.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: There is precedent in other committees and I would move that motion, to make it in the form of a motion.

The Clerk: I'm not really in a position to receive the motion, but perhaps the consensus of the committee could be made clear in one way or another.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): If you're looking for unanimous consent, I say no.

The Clerk: In that case, I am ready to receive nominations.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Charles Caccia as chairman.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I second it.

Motion agreed to

The Clerk: I declare the motion adopted and I invite Mr. Caccia to take the chair.

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Dear colleagues,

[Translation]

I would like to begin by thanking you for your trust and support.

As you know, our committee's job is not an easy one, but over the past four years, we have shown that we can work together fairly well. From time to time, we have encountered some minor problems, but overall, we have worked well together despite the differences between the three parties. I am confident, however, that the spirit of sustainable development and environmental protection is stronger than the political divisions on the Hill.

We have a fairly heavy workload awaiting us. I'm thinking about the Canada's Environmental Protection Act which must be renewed and the legislation to protect endangered species in Canada. We also have the estimates and a number of other matters to deal with. I don't intend to talk to you about these subjects right now, but I hope we can discuss them at greater length in the hour ahead.

[English]

Might I say particularly to the new members of this committee, in thanking them for having supported me in the same manner as you buy a cat in a bag, namely as an unknown and unqualified quantity, they've taken a great risk. Nevertheless, I appreciate their support and their courage in doing so. I hope they will not be disappointed. I will do my best to discharge the responsibility of the chair in an objective manner. Sometimes I will fail, and of course sometimes I will then be glad to be reminded. As you know, the role of the chair, as that of the Speaker, is not the easiest one.

• 0915

May I also be so bold as to urge the new members of this committee, in particular, to become acquainted with the meaning and implications of sustainable development, which is an important component in the name of this committee. If you join the committee on health you want to know what health is all about, and if you join the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development you want to know what sustainable development means. That of course brings us back to the definition given in Our Common Future by Madam Brundtland, which is the one that by and large has been adopted internationally and at home.

In this connection, may I bring to your attention the fact that we have two departments, newly created in 1994, which have in their legislation, in their mandate, for the minister, the mandate of implementing sustainable development. One is the Department of Industry and the other is the Department of Natural Resources. This is not a minor mandate for those two ministers, considering, if you like, the revolutionary concept that is involved and implied in the term “sustainable development”.

In geometric language perhaps, sustainable development is a cubist dimension; it implies not just the environmental protection but also the economic development, and it implies the social development. So it moves on three fronts at the same time.

While it is easy to engage, as I am now, in a discussion of it in theoretical terms, when it comes to the practical implementation of the concept of sustainable development, every government on this earth has found it extremely difficult. Some have succeeded a little bit better than others, but it is an extremely difficult policy concept to put to work, to implement.

Therefore I'm taking the liberty, in these few minutes only, to bring to your attention... I apologize if perhaps I sound paternalistic or whatever; it is certainly not my intention. I'm honestly trying to bring to your attention the complexity of the concept of sustainable development.

You are at the most difficult committee on the Hill. This is the finance committee, this is the natural resources committee, this is a social committee. You will see as we progress, when bills will be sent to us or when we will go into estimates, if you decide to do so, or if we go into other policy matters, how difficult it is to implement sustainable development.

Before concluding, because the clerk is getting nervous and he has a long agenda here and I know he doesn't like long speeches—I'm just joking—I would like to bring to your attention an article that was published in the Ottawa Citizen last week. It is about a new-wave attitude toward waste. It is about a very knowledgeable environmental person, whose name is Paul Hawken, whose existence as an author was already brought to the attention of this committee at least two years ago by the present parliamentary secretary of this committee, Madam Kraft Sloan.

I brought along a number of copies for distribution in case some of you would like to reflect on its content, as well as something that has been produced by the Dutch government, which the clerk kindly has reproduced in various copies. This is a review of what has been achieved worldwide, in Europe and in Holland, since 1992 in implementing sustainable development. It's a remarkably well done report and when reading it over the weekend I thought that this would be something that you, as members of this committee, would want to have on file and perhaps have a look at from time to time, because it touches on the major issues of our time, from climate change to pollution prevention, from population to desertification, from the depletion of natural resources to you name it. I commend it very highly to you and I thank the clerk for having done the work of preparing it for us today.

• 0920

We now go into the routine of making decisions related to a number of matters before us, according to the paper prepared by the clerk. Our next item of business is to elect a vice-chair from the government and a vice-chairman from the opposition side. Could we entertain a motion, please, on the opposition side.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move Mr. Gilmour as the vice-chairman of the opposition.

The Chairman: Are there any further motions for the opposition side? Could I have a motion to close the nominations?

An hon. member: So moved.

The Chairman: I declare Mr. Gilmour unanimously elected.

Now, on the government side, we have Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: I move that Mr. Gar Knutson be elected as vice-chair of this committee.

The Chairman: Are there any further nominations? May I have a motion to close nominations? Moved by Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

The nominations are closed. Mr. Knutson is elected unanimously. I congratulate both Mr. Gilmour and Mr. Knutson and I look forward to working with them.

We have now the question of the composition of the steering committee. Because our committee has been enlarged, there is a suggestion that we nominate a steering committee. The steering committee would meet to plan the work of the committee and somehow streamline the procedure. Keep in mind, though, that what the steering committee decides has to be ratified and confirmed or modified by the committee as a whole. Therefore it is not to be considered as a soviet presidium which decides unilaterally.

Is there a disposition of this committee to have a steering committee? This would be my first question.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think that would be quite useful. I think there are members who have membership on other committees and if there's business of the committee of a procedural and mundane nature it makes it easier for a smaller group to meet. You don't have to tie everybody up.

The Chairman: In that case the composition, according to a formula prepared very thoughtfully by our clerk, is that the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc would have one member each on this committee, plus there would be the vice-chair of the opposition and the vice-chair of the government, plus the parliamentary secretary and myself. Would this arrangement be acceptable?

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Yes.

The Chairman: Then we would leave it to each respective party to choose the person who would present the party at the steering committee. It may change from time to time, according to your preference. So decided.

The next item has to do with the research staff and the motion that has been prepared for our consideration is that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work at the discretion of the chair. If this motion is adopted, the persons who would be helping the committee, as they have in the past so valiantly, patiently, and with enormous sacrifice of time and so forth, are in this room. May I perhaps introduce them to you, for those of you who are new. They are sitting along that wall and they are Kristen Douglas, Monique Hébert, and Bill Murray.

• 0925

Could I have a motion, if there is a disposition, to the effect that the three researchers become attached to this committee?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I'll make the motion.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I second the motion.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Will you please join us at this end of the table. We welcome you and we wish you well.

Before we have a general discussion, we have to make decisions with respect to meetings in the absence of a quorum when witnesses have been invited and are appearing before this committee. The normal quorum that is in the regulations for normal meetings of the committee is usually not required. It is customary for committees, therefore, to decide what is the minimum that a committee will accept as sufficient for witnesses, who usually are here and have come a certain distance at public expense. It may have been a long day and it might be eight o'clock and members are not arriving. A few are here; the witnesses are waiting. What should be the ideal quorum in order to start hearing the witnesses? I would here invite the clerk perhaps to make a suggestion based on past experience to see whether that is acceptable to you.

The Clerk: Mr. Chair, in the past committees have accepted a minimum of even three members. Some committees in this Parliament have adopted the idea of having a minimum of five, including the chair and including both parties. It would really depend on how the committee would wish to proceed. Of course the committees are large at this time.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: The last time did we not have a quorum of four, with three government members and one opposition member? Was that the way it was?

Karen, do you remember?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We started out with a quorum representing the opposition side, but sometimes we found it difficult to have opposition members come out so we just decided on a numbered quorum.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What I was about to suggest is that perhaps we have five, or perhaps six, but something along the line of three or four government members and a minimum of two opposition members.

The Chairman: Any formula is debatable of course. Keep in mind that the larger the quorum, the longer will be the time during which the witnesses will be kept waiting. Definitely, there has to be a presence of one opposition party as a minimum so as to ensure a certain balance. Sometimes government members have been very slow in appearing as well, so the record is spotty here. We are 16, so a quorum of three might not be showing great respect for the witnesses, but a quorum of five might not be a bad idea, provided that one opposition party is represented. Six is a little bit much, but I'm in your hands.

Mr. David Pratt: Would that be including the chair?

The Chairman: Including the chair, yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think five, including the chair, with two opposition members, is workable and we should vote on that.

• 0930

The Chairman: There is a second motion, then, by Mr. Knutson, and now we have a comment here by the clerk, who informs me that some committees have adopted a motion authorizing the chair to call a meeting after 15 minutes even without a witness quorum. Well, that's very nice, but it could mean the chair and one person would start the meeting and the witnesses would talk to an empty room. That is not very respectful to the witnesses, who may have come from far away. It would be better to have a good turnout and start in five minutes with several than in fifteen minutes with an empty audience.

I suspect to proceed properly Mr. Knutson's motion will be a subamendment to Mr. Gilmour's. Would that be correct? Mr. Gilmour is proposing six and Mr. Knutson is proposing five. Since he came in last, it would be a subamendment to the same motion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, just for my clarification, this is only for hearing witnesses. It is not the regular quorum of the committee.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What is the regular quorum for committee, then?

The Chairman: This is the witness quorum.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What is the regular quorum for the committee?

The Chairman: Out of sixteen, it would be eight plus one.

Are you ready for the question, then, namely to vote first on the motion by Mr. Knutson for five, and then, if that motion does not carry, for Mr. Gilmour's motion for six?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would be prepared to withdraw. I think five is reasonable.

The Chairman: Is it? All right. That simplifies the task. Is there a consensus for five?

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: It is understood that this number of five is to include at least two representatives of the opposition.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Two of these five members must be from the opposition parties.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Fine then.

[English]

The Chairman: Correct. So it's understood that this motion, as adopted, means five people, of which two are opposition members. That's fair enough. Thank you.

Now we move to the opening statements. As you know, witnesses appear and it has been customary to give witnesses 10 minutes for their statement. The chair needs a motion to that effect.

Secondly, what is needed is also a motion to indicate whether it is acceptable to the members of this committee to have five minutes allocated for questioners. We go around the table, so to say. We start with the official opposition, as is customary, and in the past parliament, in order to give as many members as possible an opportunity, we adopted a practice to recognize a member for five minutes, so there could be more than one round of questions. Of course it could be ten minutes, but in that case the process is slowed down and we don't have more than one round of questions, and usually the second round brings out a number of interesting points that had not been thought of in the first round.

The chair would entertain a motion to the effect that this committee is willing to adopt a rule for witnesses to make a presentation for ten minutes. Is there agreement on that?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: How long normally are we going to have witnesses here for? Will they be here for an hour, an hour and a half? How long with their preamble be and how much time will it leave for the questions?

The Chairman: It depends on how they are scheduled and organized. When it comes to the examination of a bill, you could face a group of three different witnesses, who usually are like-minded and who would come in as one group for an hour. Then another team comes on board for another hour. In that hour they have time for their presentation and for at least one round of questions, if not two. That's how it usually worked in the last Parliament.

• 0935

Mr. Bill Gilmour: In terms of the timing, there's also the sequence. What are you proposing for the sequence? Are you saying that all the opposition members will go first and then Liberals, or will you be bouncing back and forth?

The Chairman: In the last Parliament we gave the first question to the official opposition, as a rule, religiously respected. Then we went to the government. Then we went to another opposition party. In this case, with a new Parliament, we will alternate between opposition and government, zig-zagging, like a nice slalom.

We are now on the subject of ten minutes per witness. Is there a disposition to adopt the rule of ten minutes per witness?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the study of bills? Are there other times when witnesses are heard? For example, when we study a department's budget, do we call in departmental officials to testify? Are they too considered witnesses?

The Chairman: We do in fact have certain rules in place for all witnesses.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: How can we know in advance that ten minutes will be sufficient? It all depends on the subjects being examined.

The Chairman: That's true, but a lot can be said in ten minutes if we're talking about important things.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I understand.

The Chairman: If someone wants to indulge in rhetoric, that's another matter. However, if a minister testifies, we can set aside the schedule, show some flexibility and give him a little more time. However, it is good to adopt a general rule.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Summing up, ten minutes seems reasonable to me, provided that we can occasionally extend this time, if members consent. There are times where we receive a special witness with above-average knowledge of a particular matter and we need to take the time to hear what that witness has to say.

The Chairman: The committee can bend the rule if there is unanimous consent.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: I have attended committee meetings where before turning the floor over to the government, the opposition parties were allowed one round of questions to express their views on the subject at hand. The government then had a turn before proceeding to another round of questioning. Many committees follow this procedure.

The Chairman: We can proceed in a variety of ways, but to achieve a more or less balanced debate, it would be better for us to alternate so that we could hear arguments on both sides.

You are proposing that after 25 minutes of questions, government members would have the opportunity to ask their first question. It would be five, five, five, five and five, and then we would go to the other side. We could proceed this way if committee members have no objections. We could have questions from two opposition parties, five, five and then five, five, five, five, five and five.

Mr. Gilmour.

[English]

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Might I suggest—and this would balance the committees—that the two opposition parties and the government lead off with ten minutes, so it would go Reform, Liberal, Bloc, and then go to five minutes. That would balance the opposition parties with the numbers on the other side. I believe it would also give the bouncing back and forth, which is preferable to all the opposition and then all the government, because in many cases, as we saw last time, we run out of time.

• 0940

The Chairman: So you would say ten, ten—

The Clerk: Ten to the Bloc and then go to five. Then it would be five for the Liberals, five the Conservatives, five the Liberals, five the NDP.

The Chairman: You would have twenty here versus fifteen minutes over there.

The Clerk: No, because you're getting more Liberals in. I believe it's balanced.

The Chairman: Provided there are people willing to ask questions, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't think we can compare it with what happened in the last parliament, because in the last Parliament there were two opposition parties. I don't think that can work. I think your suggestion about having two opposition parties and then two government, two opposition parties, two government, works out the fine balance. It keeps the debate lively and it keeps a variety of interests going. If it is all one side or all the other side it's just far too much.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think your opening statements were pretty balanced. If you keep it at five minutes for the opening round, then I think that's where the balance the hon. member of the Reform mentioned would occur: at the discretion of the chair at the second round.

The Chairman: The advantage of the five minutes is that it gives more members a chance to participate before the subject matter is so exhausted that the debate has moved on to other fields. Five minutes has great advantages over ten.

However, at a certain point the chair needs a motion in order to conclude this very interesting discussion, because we could elaborate on it for several hours. I'm sure we would discover interesting conclusions, but let's move on and see whether we have agreement on five minutes, whereby we do perhaps two opposition members and then two government members, and then two and two, provided they raise their hands, because if they don't raise their hands there's nothing the chair can do, but sticking to the five-minute rule. Is there a consensus on that possibility?

Mr. Gilmour, you may want to formulate a motion so we can proceed.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'll go with my original motion, which is that the three parties, Reform, Bloc, Liberal, start off with ten minutes, and then it alternates down to five minutes down the table. I will make that in the form of a motion.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question, or is there any comment on Mr. Gilmour's motion?

Mr. John Herron: Why not keep it to a first round of five minutes? We actually get more interchange on the topic.

The Chairman: No, he's not proposing five after. He's proposing ten minutes and five minutes after the first two.

Mr. Gilmour can answer your question better than I can.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That way it represents the membership in the House.

Mr. John Herron: That's the whole intent of having committees: to have more balance and more interchange from different perspectives.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: The balance is—

Mr. John Herron: I would disagree with that.

The Chairman: We'll put the motion to a vote, so you have an opportunity to do that. That's the beauty of democracy.

Ms Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this is not strictly on the question, but it would be a great advantage to myself, anyway, as a new member, if before we went further we could introduce ourselves, just so I have an idea who is speaking. It would be a pleasure if that could be part of our proceedings.

The Chairman: We will do that immediately after the conclusion of this and before we go into the next item. That's a very helpful suggestion, no doubt.

Motion negatived

The Chairman: Could I then have another motion?

• 0945

Mr. David Pratt: I think we were moving the same thing.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I move that we have the interactive approach—that is, five minutes from the government and five from opposition—and alternate in sort of the parliamentary slalom effect.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And start with the government?

Mr. John Herron: With the opposition.

The Chairman: Starting with the official opposition?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: Would you please repeat your motion so that everybody can hear it well.

Mr. John Herron: I think she worded it better. The opposition would start with two five-minute sessions, and then it would go on to the government with two five-minute sessions, alternating back at that point.

The Chairman: All right. You have heard the proposal by Mr. Herron. Are there any comments?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: After the two and two, are we going two and two or one and one?

The Chairman: One and one.

So Mr. Herron is suggesting, as Mr. Gilmour just stressed, two and two and then one and one, and all the interventions are roughly five minutes. Are you ready for the question?

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Now we come to the witnesses' expenses. I will let the clerk elaborate on that.

The Clerk: Mr. Chair, the standard procedure—and this is approved by the Board of Internal Economy—is that reasonable travelling, accommodation and living expenses are usually reimbursed to a maximum of two witnesses per organization. This simply authorizes the clerk to contact two witnesses by organization and authorizes the clerk to say that their expenses will be covered.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So moved.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question, or are there any comments?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Do you need a seconder?

The Chairman: Yes, that's fine. That is helpful. Seconded.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Now we will go for the suggestion by Ms Carroll, namely to go around the table and elaborate a little bit on our backgrounds. Perhaps we will start with Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'm Bill Gilmour, representing the Reform Party. My riding is Nanaimo—Alberni on central Vancouver Island in B.C. I'm a former member of the committee.

Mr. Rick Casson: I'm Rick Casson. My constituency is Lethbridge in southern Alberta, basically a farm and agriculture-oriented area. This is my first committee meeting of any kind.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): I'm Chuck Cadman, from Surrey North, British Columbia, and it's my first committee too.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): My name is Bernard Bigras and I am the member for Rosemont in Montreal. I'm attending my first committee meeting.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: My name is Christiane Gagnon and I represent the riding of Québec. This is my first meeting as a member of this committee, although I did serve on other committees in the 35th Parliament.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: John Herron, Fundy—Royal, New Brunswick, and it's my first committee as well.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Rick Laliberte, from Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan. The riding covers half of the province, consisting of boreal forest, Precambrian shield, a kind of cross-section of our country. This is my first committee activity.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm Joe Jordan from Leeds—Grenville, a riding just south of here. It's my first committee as well.

Ms Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I'm Roger Gallaway. In another life I'm Colleen Beaumier, and I'm not a permanent member of this committee.

Mr. Gar Knutson: My name is Gar Knutson and I'm from the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London. It's in southwestern Ontario on the north shore of Lake Erie.

Mr. David Pratt: I'm David Pratt. My riding is Nepean—Carleton, just on the edge of the national capital. This is my first committee meeting.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: My name is Karen Kraft Sloan. I was vice-chair of this committee in the previous Parliament. I'm now the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. My riding is York North, which is one hour north of Toronto on the shores of Lake Simcoe, an agricultural area. It's a wonderful riding.

This is my 11,923rd meeting of this particular committee.

• 0950

Ms Aileen Carroll: My name is Aileen Carroll. This is my first meeting of this committee. I was just selected this term. I am from Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, just north of Toronto. I look forward to working together on huge issues that we are here to address.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My name is Yvon Charbonneau and I represent the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, an industrial- based riding located in east end Montreal.

In the past, I had the opportunity to chair a Quebec government commission of enquiry into the management of hazardous waste. Armed with a mandate from the Quebec public hearings office on environmental issues, we examined over a period of 18 months in 1989-1990 the issue of hazardous waste management. We followed up with a report to the then Minister of the Environment.

[English]

Mr. Bill Murray (Committee Researcher): My name is Bill Murray. I am with the research branch, the science and technology section. My background is environmental health.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Hébert (research officer for the committee): My name is Monique Hébert and I work in the Law and Government Division of the Research Branch. Among other things, I was involved in the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, two years ago, in the drafting of a report which is now rather famous. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes indeed.

[English]

Ms Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): I am Kristen Douglas. I am also with the law and government division of the parliamentary research branch. I have worked for this committee off and on for the last seven or eight years. The last project I worked on was the endangered species legislation.

The Clerk: I am Stephen Knowles, your clerk. My environmental experience includes nine years with Parks Canada, but I have been a procedural clerk for the last eighteen years on a number of committees and done various things.

The Chairman: Thank you. As you know, I am Charles Caccia, representing the people and the forests of downtown Toronto. At times I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

Without further delay, if you are in agreement, let us have a good roundtable discussion as to what in your view could be the work of this committee until this committee is given a specific assignment in terms of a bill by the government. As you know, during the life of this Parliament this committee is likely to deal with two pieces of legislation. One was left incomplete, unfinished, called CESPA, the Canadian endangered species legislation, which died on the order paper after having gone through committee at the report stage. For those of you who are new to this parliamentary language, the report stage is the stage when a bill or a report is taken to the House after thorough examination in committee. So the endangered species legislation has been dealt with by this committee quite extensively, and it is going to come back eventually.

There is another piece of legislation, just mentioned by Madame Hébert, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which some of you may be familiar with from the previous Parliament, which was the object of an extensive public consultation, an extensive report, a reply by the government. That went only as far as the formulation of a bill that was tabled in the House of Commons and died on the order paper. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a bill that really attempts to regulate chemicals and reduce and prevent pollutants.

So these two pieces of legislation sooner or later will be given to this committee.

• 0955

The question therefore arises, what is this committee to do between now and the time when the government assigns a bill to this committee? A variety of possibilities are before us. I will not waste your time on it, because the purpose is to hear your views as to what you think this committee could do. It is a consultative exercise that we'll be going through in the next half hour or so to hear views. The parliamentary secretary is with us and he is also the link with the minister. Then having received that input and so forth, this committee will meet again and propose the kind of work we ought to do in October, November, December, until a bill is given to the committee for study.

So the floor is open. We'll start with Mr. Charbonneau, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to draw your attention to two concerns that I hope the committee will address.

First of all, there is the ongoing federal-provincial harmonization process. As a new member, I'm not fully aware of all the details or the origins of this issue, but a process to harmonize environmental regulations has been launched. I would imagine that this involves talks between teams of federal and provincial officials, most likely from coast to coast.

I would like us to take stock of this issue and get a report from the appropriate authority, be it the Environment Minister or his representative, so that we can understand the ins and outs of this process, what has already been accomplished and what problems were encountered. In short, I would like the committee to get a status report.

Secondly, I would like us to consider at some point during the year the environment industry. We will have an opportunity to focus on many environmental problems and to gain awareness of a number of challenges that we face. We must, however, also endeavour to find solutions to the problems identified. Solutions will be possible if we develop new procedures, practices and technologies, and if we get help from the environment industry which can advise us as well as provide new mechanisms and technologies. In terms of mechanisms and technologies, linkages must be developed. Canada's environment industry has grown considerably in recent years, despite its share of problems.

Realistically, we must take the time not only to define the problems, but also to consider how we can resolve them using environment industry technologies. To achieve this objective, we can consider meeting with representatives of the Department of Industry or of other appropriate departments in order to work together on finding solutions to the problems that need to be addressed.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I too would like us to establish some priorities. The committee needs to be informed as soon as possible about the targets that have been set in terms of reducing of greenhouse gases.

No doubt you know that in less than two months' time, Canada will be making representations in Kyoto.

• 1000

It is important for us to have a clear idea of the targets that Canada has set for itself so that we can move quickly to debate the important issues that will be addressed in Kyoto. This should be one of our priorities.

I concur with my colleague, the member for Anjou—Rivière-des- Prairies, in that the harmonization process is another priority of ours. In my view, this is a fundamental issue. The longer the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is delayed, the more important it is for us to have an open, honest debate on harmonization, particularly as regards talks between the federal and provincial governments.

I consider these two issues to be important and they should be debated here in committee.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to draw your attention to one problem. We have all received these documents in English. This is a highly technical committee and before distributing these copies in English, it seems to me that... Personally, this morning I feel somewhat...

The Chairman: You are absolutely right, but this is my personal responsibility. This morning, I decided to give you a document that originates elsewhere. It is not a parliamentary document.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: I also have here a letter from the Library which is in English.

The Chairman: Yes. Of course it has been translated into French because it is a parliamentary document.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: I simply wanted to bring this to your attention, because it is important that we receive documents in both official languages, English and French, simultaneously.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my former life I was a municipal councillor. For ten years I served on Nepean and regional council here in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I also served as a member of the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We were active on a couple of issues related to the FCM, one of which was the issue of global greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions, to pick up the comments of the former speaker.

One of the issues we worked on at that time through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was the idea of having the government consider employer-provided transit passes as a tax-free benefit. The idea of course is that over the course of the last ten years transit use has been declining significantly throughout North America, and if we want to make any inroads in terms of reducing our carbon dioxide emissions it's important to get people riding public transit. So that was one of the issues we were promoting very strongly at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as well as locally here in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

It's worth noting that there are a number of western European countries that do provide tax breaks for employers that provide transit passes to their employees.

The other issue we were working on through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was that of district energy, which again relates to the whole question of carbon dioxide emissions. District energy, as some people may know, is piped hot and cold water from central heating and cooling plants to supply downtown cores, typically, with heating and cooling.

For the information of those members around this committee, the parliamentary precincts are heated and cooled by a district energy system, the central plant of which is to our west here. It also uses waste heat from industrial sources. For instance, we have a source of waste heat just across the river with Scott Paper Company, which pours quite a bit of hot water into the Ottawa River. Unfortunately, all of that energy is wasted right now. And there are countless instances of situations like that across the country where we're essentially wasting energy.

District energy and the whole issue of how we get these systems up and running has been a major preoccupation of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

• 1005

I should also add that district energy is in use in many parts of Scandinavia and northern Europe. One of the issues that the FCM has taken on is the whole issue of the need for an accelerated capital cost allowance to allow district energy systems to get up and running, with a few tax breaks so that we can enjoy the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide emissions and more efficient heating and cooling.

Those are a couple of pet projects of mine that I've worked on in the past that I think are very interesting.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could enlighten us on when we might be seeing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act. We spent an awful lot of time on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Would that amount of time be similar, in your estimate?

I'm just trying to get a feel for the amount of time we have. I gather that the Liberals are spread pretty thin among a number of committees. I also gather that travelling committees are not an option. Perhaps you could give us a bit of an opener on the timeframe and the limitations this committee will have to operate under.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour, the chair is not in a position to enlighten at all times, and even less on CEPA. He does not know. He knows that he doesn't know, which is an ancient Socratic phrase.

We are here totally in the hands of decisions made outside this building, and we can only guess. It could be weeks or months. I think we would be wise to make decisions on our own and get some work done rather than wait until something happens, because we could do some interesting work.

We have two vice-chairs. We could break this committee into three teams that will make our clerk's life...not easier, but we could have three different teams exploring three different areas on their own and have them report back to the committee after four or six weeks. I'm sure that as we proceed here this morning we'll explore and discover interesting territory.

Mr. Pratt just spoke about waste heat. Waste heat is an immense subject. It has tremendous potential if we are to go into it. Mr. Charbonneau mentioned harmonization. So has Mr. Bigras. That also is an immense field. I could add to it if you like acid rain, which is the subject that just emerged a few hours ago. There is a report on pollution in the Arctic, which was presented to the government, to the Department of Northern Affairs, last June. Pollution in the Arctic is really pollution emanating from the south and therefore it would bring us back home in a way to the reality facing us, which is also a very interesting report.

For those who are new on this committee there is also the work of the commissioner on sustainable development, his responsibilities, and would the committee want to meet that important commissioner. Then there is the possibility of going into the estimates late—usually that is done in the spring—which would then bring the entire establishment of strength of the department to the committee for questioning, and that would take a few weeks as well.

I would encourage members to make further suggestions so that we see what emerges here this morning.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I agree with much of what has been said. I'd like to see us take a look at the harmonization accord. I'd like to see us take a look at the whole issue of climate change, with a particular emphasis on reviewing the record of voluntary compliance to date. I'd like to see us take a look at the report that came out of the NAFTA environmental body, the one that ranked Ontario as seventh.

• 1010

The Chairman: The commission report?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right. I have an interest in acid rain.

I also think the government is not going to introduce the endangered species bill or CEPA for a while. It wouldn't hurt to review the bills that were written under the last term. Then we could provide some comments to the government. By way of example, if they are planning on reintroducing the same CEPA as was introduced in the last term, we could make some comments before they do that. Perhaps there is an opportunity to issue a unanimous report. If we did that, presumably it would carry some weight. I also also think the estimates are a good exercise.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have to ditto a lot of things that are going around the table in terms of my interest as well. If we decide to pursue the issue of harmonization, I think it would be important to take a look at gaps in the federal-provincial relationship in terms of environmental management and environmental protection. This committee has consistently heard over and over again that there is really no significant overlap or duplication and that perhaps the problem lies in the gaps.

For new members, the estimates process, especially the way our noble chairman and leader has undertaken it in the past, is a very good educational process. It is a good way to learn about the department. I think that would be a worthy pursuit too.

Of course climate change is an issue that is upon us, with the Kyoto negotiations coming up. It is a concern to many people in this country, as it is around the world. It is a very important issue.

I have to echo some of the things Mr. Charbonneau spoke about. I too am interested in environmental technology and may refer you to a subcommittee that in the previous Parliament organized a forum on environment, jobs, and sustainable development. It was an attempt to bring some of these issues to light.

This goes on with what Mr. Pratt had brought forward. While we take a look at the issues and the problems we're facing, it's important to focus on where some of the solutions are, so we can add a positive portion to the dialogue. As Mr. Caccia has said, the implementation of sustainable development is very problematic and complex. If we had in mind what was working in terms of environmental technology and also on the softer side, how you start implementing sustainable development and what practices and models there might be out there...

I have to commend you on bringing the Dutch paper to our attention, because this gives us some focus of success.

Those are my rattlings.

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Briefly, I wish to remind you that the Auditor General's report is scheduled to be tabled this morning. I'm new to this committee and I don't know if it is customary for us to deal with the points raised in the AG's report. I would also like to remind the committee of the commitments made to draw up a plan for the decontamination of all federal government sites. This plan is scheduled to be tabled by December 1997. Each department must survey each site and submit action plans. I don't know if the report is usually examined in committee, but speaking of priorities, this is a very short-term one. I think it's important for the committee to address this issue.

• 1015

[English]

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If we're developing a shopping list, then one of the issues that I'm concerned with is certainly global warming. I carry a concern about the Arctic, particularly the Arctic Ocean and how fragile it is, although if we're stuck in Ottawa, I'm not sure of the practicality of examining some of the material.

One issue that hasn't come out that is very topical is the Candu reactors. I'm certainly not on a witch-hunt for anybody, but these are now international units that are showing up with some flaws in Ontario. I wouldn't mind getting some unbiased evidence—we're getting a lot from both sides—just to find out if there are major concerns and what they are and where we are going, because they're in China, in India... They're not just here. I am not suggesting a huge, in-depth study, but I think someone should come forth and enlighten us.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I concur with all of the comments that have been made on harmonization and global warming. Persistent organic pollutants are an issue that may arise with the assessment of the Auditor General and the reports that you're getting on federal sites, but this goes beyond those sites.

Also, this morning there was a briefing on nuclear waste. It seems as if somebody's foot is in the doorway now to open Canada as a nuclear waste site and location. It should be a target for this committee to try to see the global perspective of this industry and where it's going. It's an inevitable problem, but there's no solution out there.

I just want to say that the sustainable development policies of which you've apprised us here are very crucial. I think the challenge is how we will implement them. This Hawken individual is speaking at Queen's tomorrow and it's unfortunate that we won't have him here to speak to us.

The Chairman: Well, it's only two hours by train. The whole committee could go and hear Mr. Hawken.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's a public lecture.

The Chairman: At what time?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'll get the information. He charges big bucks, so if it's free we're...

But you have a European Parliamentary Association meeting tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, and you're running for president.

The Chairman: The clerk has the topic. He can announce more details.

The Clerk: I could be corrected, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that at Queen's there is a meeting of, among others, business leaders where the question of the bottom line with regard to sustainability is being addressed, and that's where Mr. Hawken is a keynote speaker.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have the agenda for that meeting if anyone is interested. I'll locate the time for Mr. Hawken.

The Chairman: Could you make a copy and circulate it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The public lecture commences at 7.30 p.m and it goes until 10 p.m. Ray Anderson, who is chairman of Interface and the co-chair of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, will be giving a keynote address, and Paul Hawken will be speaking at that time as well. It's at a conference site at Queen's University.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're welcome.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point on another matter.

• 1020

The Chairman: All right, then, I will recognize you in a moment.

On the basis of the interventions that have been made—and notes have been taken very carefully—I will call a meeting of the steering committee to discuss all these options and to select possibly two or three, so as to come back to this committee for a decision based on the recommendation of the steering committee or a modification of that recommendation. At the same time, on the process side, it will determine whether from the perspective of the clerk we have the capacity to develop two or three subcommittees, so there could be an approach on more than just one subject, if that is, of course, the preference of the committee. I would imagine we should be able to have a meeting on this matter not next week, because we are not sitting, but definitely the following week, and come to a decision fairly soon.

If any one of you has additional suggestions to make, please contact the clerk. He is the one who is available for inquiries on your part and for additional input. If we don't hear from you further, that means the steering committee will then examine the proposals as made this morning and come back to the full committee with a set of recommendations very soon.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Following from what you just said, are you saying the steering committee won't meet until after the break?

The Chairman: The steering committee could meet as soon as Thursday morning, if there is a willingness on the part of members to meet.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What about later today?

The Chairman: No, not later today.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I just think leaving the steering committee until after the break—

The Chairman: No, the steering committee would meet this week, but you have to give some members on this committee time to consult other parties and so on.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Just as a point of clarification, in the past members who were not officially assigned to the steering committee had also an open invitation to come to steering committee meetings. I'm wondering if members are available who want to attend the steering committee meeting, in light of the fact that we are going through a bit of a work plan and priorizing some issues. Would this be appropriate in this situation as well?

The Chairman: Yes, not only would it be appropriate, it's a very good suggestion. We will then treat the steering committee as a committee meeting open to all interested members, as you were just saying.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right.

The Chairman: Therefore the notice will go out to everybody, but it will not restrict to one, for instance, the attendance on the part of an opposition party. Definitely we can do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I would like us to be clear on this. The role of the steering committee is to formulate guidelines to facilitate the committee's work. It isn't just another committee meeting. I would like us to agree on this. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the steering committee's job is to establish broad guidelines to help the committee work more efficiently. I would like us to consider how we deal with questions on the steering committee.

[English]

The Chairman: I love the term une grande ligne directrice. Disorganized as I am, you're asking quite a lot. But we will try.

• 1025

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Just to clarify what I've said, this is not a regular committee meeting, but in the past we have shown goodwill to allow members who have an interest in attending this meeting to attend. Generally the steering meetings are very informal. It's an opportunity to go through some procedural issues and things like that. Having it open and allowing members who have an interest to participate just means we are going through a process of inclusiveness, as opposed to exclusiveness.

It's not a formal committee meeting. It's a steering committee meeting, which people are free to attend or not attend.

The Chairman: Your colleague, for instance, could attend if she wishes to do so, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On another point, the issue of documents in French came up earlier. Often groups would show up with their presentation and hand out a document in English only. I'm wondering if we can do two things when we prepare the budget: first, prepare the budget so money is available to translate documents, because often the groups who appear in front of us don't have a lot of money; and then advise groups appearing to give us their material early enough that it can be translated.

The Chairman: It's a very good thought in principle. It will be the task of the clerk to insist with groups that in a bilingual country they come forward with bilingual documentation. However, where it is absolutely impossible, we will have to take that into account in the budget that is to be prepared.

I'm sure the clerk has some comments.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, we do not have a budget specifically for translation. That's a service which is provided automatically. It's outside the committee budget.

As the chair said, it's really a question of committee policy—it may be bigger than that, but we'll leave it at committee policy—and it's a question of timing and logistics. Certainly all documents which are submitted by interested groups, if we get them in time, will be translated by the translation division and circulated.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What turnover can you normally expect in a busy parliamentary year?

The Clerk: The letter you have from Mr. Koerner, for example, was translated yesterday and is ready for circulation today. But for a 50-page document you're talking about a week or so.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That raises the issue of resources and money.

The Clerk: I see what you're saying: the committee budget for its own translation services.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes. I don't think it's appropriate that we hold up the work of the committee for a week or two while documents are being translated. We can ask for the resources to have things translated, and I think the House should appreciate that.

The Clerk: I think the problem comes up when a witness arrives with a document in hand rather than briefs which are received earlier and for which witnesses have been scheduled some time in advance.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I understand that point. I'm saying we advise them ahead of time that if they can't afford to do the translation themselves, then we'll do it for them, through either the resources of the House or own resources. So we would advise them ahead of time to avoid that as much as possible, and we want the turnover to be fairly quick.

The Chairman: The clerk will perhaps prepare a set of rules for this particular purpose and then discuss them with you, Mr. Knutson, to see that every aspect has been properly covered, so the policy is well established on paper and we don't have any surprises when witnesses appear. Is that all right with you? We will have to do some creative thinking on it.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: On the point of translation, I don't think we need to be going to an extra budget. The facilities are already there. It's just a matter of the clerk making sure the witnesses know ahead of time to bring it in both languages.

To go back to the question on the steering committee, I think we should all realize that the steering committee is there to save time. We don't need 16 people at the table. It comes to this committee anyway. There's nothing secret. If anybody wants to be there, that's fine, but the purpose of it is to streamline. We're all busy people and we don't need to have 16 of us around the table. If you want to be there, come on ahead.

• 1030

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I sit on the steering committee and I think that we should place our trust in the three members. In my view, the steering committee is basically an organization committee which sets out the work of the standing committee. Its role is not to direct debate. Its job is to set an agenda, to coordinate the subcommittees and to make suggestions to help the committee function in a more practical way. Furthermore, since each member is free to attend the subcommittee meeting, I think we should go with this formula and put it to the test. If problems arise over the next few months, we can always reconsider our position.

I would also like to take this opportunity to add an item to the shopping list that we were discussing earlier. We have received a briefing booklet prepared for standing committee members. I admit that I haven't had the time to read it from cover to cover, but in the last few pages, a very important topic is raised, one that hasn't been mentioned by any of our colleagues. I would like to draw your attention to it.

I am referring to section 6: Notes respecting federal- provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters. It contains a quote from the March 1993 report entitled Environment and the Constitution. On page 39 of the French document and on page 34 of the English version, we read that at the start of 1992, whereas the committee had concluded its hearings and adopted its findings and recommendations, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling in Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada.

The Library of Parliament has examined the impact of this ruling. However, the committee has apparently not yet had an opportunity to weigh the impact of this decision. In my view, this is a very important subject and I would like us to address it because I suspect that it has very important ramifications with respect to the sharing of federal and provincial responsibilities. We are here to air our concerns.

The Chairman: That is all very interesting.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In this line as well, there was also a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which clearly laid out Canada's role, federal presence, in the environment too.

The Chairman: Any further input? Any further comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We could likely do this at the same time as we deal with the harmonization issue.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's exactly what I wanted to mention: harmonization, that broad perspective.

The other issue that may come in is the international aspect—and the media is starting to pick it up—on multilateral agreement on investment, what it infringes on in our federal jurisdiction.

The Chairman: This meeting can be gradually brought to an end. I thank you for your active participation. The clerk and the researchers will stay for a short while to discuss how we will organize the meeting of the steering committee for Thursday morning. The notice will go out as soon as possible.

I thank you again for your support, and I wish you a good day.

This meeting is adjourned.