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, March 10, 1998

• 0938

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I do apologize for our late start. We're having trouble getting a quorum.

We are meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the enforcement of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, including related regulations and administrative agreements.

Our witnesses are from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. Could you introduce yourselves? Take no longer than ten minutes, and then we'll go to questions.

Ms. Fiona Cooke (Vice-President for Government Relations, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): Good morning. My name is Fiona Cooke. I'm vice-president, government relations, with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association.

I would like to begin by thanking you for the invitation to appear at today's hearing. We welcome the opportunity to present our views on environmental protection, harmonization initiatives, and enforcement.

That statement may sound a bit strange coming from pulp and paper, but the truth of the matter is we feel particularly well suited to comment on environmental issues, given the highly regulated nature of our industry and the experience we have gained in this context.

We also view today's discussion as timely and extremely important in light of ongoing harmonization discussions and the upcoming CEPA review process.

We are appearing today under the auspices of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, which is the national association of pulp and paper companies in Canada. Our membership currently represents about 80% of all pulp and paper produced in Canada.

Pulp and paper constitutes the largest segment of the Canadian forest products sector, which is a vital and integral part of the Canadian economy. The forest products sector is the main contributor to this country's trade balance, accounting for $30 billion worth of trade on an annual basis. This is virtually this nation's entire trade surplus, and it represents more than the contribution of metals and automobiles combined.

• 0940

Over the past 40 years the Canadian forestry industry has been responsible for over a quarter of all Canadian manufacturing expenditures. Currently the net capital stock per employee in this industry stands at $325,000, which is four times the national average for all of manufacturing combined. One million jobs, accounting for about 7% of Canadian employment, are directly and indirectly generated by the forest products sector. And in addition, the industry is key to the viability of approximately 350 rural communities in Canada.

Those figures serve not only to highlight the economic significance of the industry, but they also indicate just how many stakeholders are involved, and it is in recognition of the key role of partnerships in the sustainable development of this industry that we appear here today.

At this point I will turn things over to Lucie Desforges, CPPA's director of environment and energy.

Ms. Lucie Desforges (Director, Environment and Energy, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): Good morning. Bonjour.

I am going to take this opportunity to describe to you the regulatory framework in the pulp and paper sector, as well as CPPA's views on effective enforcement in Canada. But first let me briefly give you an idea of the environmental performance of our sector.

As you can see on the last page of the document that was distributed to you this morning, the pulp and paper sector has significantly reduced its emissions to the environment since the turn of the decade. These improvements are the result of a $5-billion investment in pollution abatement and pollution prevention. Also, the industry is a leader in reducing greenhouse gases, having voluntarily reduced carbon dioxide by 12%, while production in the same period has increased by 17%. The industry has also voluntarily reduced toxic emissions by 67% under the ARET program and is rapidly approaching its 80% reduction target.

Many factors explain those improvements. Yes, enforcement does and did play an important role, but there are also many other important factors, such as the recognition by our industry that pollution is waste and inefficiency, the market acceptance of our products and our customers' desire for environmentally friendly products, and also audits for financial purposes for our clients for environmental management systems certification. These are all key elements of environmental protection in the pulp and paper sector.

As you know, the pulp and paper sector is a highly regulated industry. In some provinces, mills have to deal with over 60 different federal and provincial regulations. It's this day-to-day reality that has prompted the CPPA to support the Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization.

At the federal level, the pulp and paper industry is regulated under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. There is a unique characteristic of the pulp and paper regulations under the Fisheries Act that I think this committee should be aware of, and many people aren't aware of. It's that every mill discharging to receiving waters has to conduct studies that are called “environmental effects monitoring”

[Translation]

or, in French, "études de suivi des effets sur l'environnement",

[English]

and these studies are there to help us and government determine if the regulations are adequately protecting the fish and their habitat.

The studies consist of a series of biological, chemical, physical tests that are conducted on fish and living organisms and sediments, and if ever we discover that the receiving waters are in jeopardy, then government, in partnership with industry, can develop site-specific regulations, voluntary action plans, and so on.

So that component of the Fisheries Act is very important. Not only can Canadians rely on the enforcement of discharge limits in our sector, but they can also rely on these studies that will give us a very accurate sense of what is the health of the receiving environment. Our industry has spent over $11 million in conducting these studies.

[Translation]

Now, at the provincial level, many provinces including BC, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick each have specific pulp and paper regulations. For the most part, these regulations are as, or more, stringent than the federal regulations.

On page 2 of the document that was distributed, you see a comparison between some of the provincial and federal regulations. However, it is important to emphasize that in many cases the requirements of the provincial regulations are inconsistent with the federal ones. That is especially true in the areas of reporting and testing requirements.

• 0945

Enforcement of environmental legislation, whether federal or provincial, is achieved in many ways in our sector. All mills must provide monthly reports to the different levels of government. In the case of accidental spills, mills must forward reports to government as soon as possible. Both planned and unannounced inspections take place throughout the year.

As you know, in some provinces both levels of government have signed agreements under which the provincial government enforces federal legislation in cases where federal regulations are, so to speak, included in provincial regulations. That's more specifically the case in Quebec, in BC, where the matter is under review, and also in Alberta.

[English]

The CPPA believes in equitable enforcement of environmental regulations that are based on sound science and proper risk assessment. Regulation does have its place among environmental protection tools, such as market-based incentives and voluntary measures.

Although this may seem unusual for a highly regulated industry such as the pulp and paper industry, the CPPA sees enforcement of regulations as a positive opportunity. When effectively and constructively applied, regulations can create a level playing field and encourage optimum environmental practices within an industrial sector.

Canada's pulp and paper industry wants to see enforcement play a positive role within the regulatory framework. It represents an equitable and positive lever for companies. To do that, enforcement must reflect the best qualities of regulation itself. It must be well communicated in advance and be transparent, timely, consistent, understandable, and focused on achieving desired, measurable results of a regulation.

To achieve compliance, governments can use a number of tools: mandatory reporting, inspections, promotion of compliance, warning letters, and remedial action plans. Those are just some of the possibilities. Enforcement, in our minds, does not directly equate to prosecutions. The intensity of enforcement in Canada should not be judged solely on the number of prosecutions. Enforcement should enshrine a co-operative approach to solving problems and getting the job done.

Finally, when it comes to harmonization, the CPPA is not ideological but pragmatic. In our view harmonization does not represent a threat to better environmental protection but an opportunity, especially when it comes to enforcement and compliance.

Obviously enforcement and compliance tend to be the most costly and onerous aspects of a regulation. In this case the single window approach makes the most sense. This approach does not weaken the federal government's power, because both levels of government retain their existing authorities, and that is the case under the recently signed Canada-wide harmonization accord. It is also the case in some of the agreements that we actually have in the pulp and paper sector, such as the one in the province of Quebec.

Harmonization, we believe, will allow Canada to reach high environmental standards while achieving greater efficiency in the management of environmental performance, allowing better priority setting to address the most crucial issues and, most important, making more efficient use of Canada's taxpayers' dollars through faster action and the elimination of wasteful duplication.

In summary, let me say that the CPPA believes the following enforcement principles should be respected in Canada. The goal of enforcement should be the protection of the environment. Enforcement must be equitable, consistent, and fair. Enforcement and compliance must be harmonized. Enforcement must be prioritized based on risk.

I will conclude by saying that the pulp and paper industry knows that the future of its business depends on its ability to ensure the economic and environmental viability of the industry, and that is why our actions focus on sustainable development.

I would like to thank you very much. Fiona, Claude Roy, who is the senior director of environment, health, and safety with CPPA, and I would be glad to answer any questions.

• 0950

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

We have one additional witness, Mr. Gertler, who is still on his way. We're hoping he will arrive in time.

Mr. Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): You mentioned harmonization, overlap, and duplication. You support harmonization and what it should do. Can you give us some specific examples of duplication and overlap that have happened in your industry?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: As I was saying, most of the provincial regulations are stricter than the federal regulations, so the discharge limits create a duplication in that aspect.

One area in which there's duplication and conflict is calculation methods. For instance, the Quebec regulations require that production be based on the last 30 days. In Canada it's a totally different approach; it's based on an annual average of the production, ninetieth percentile, etc. These create different calculation methods and different limits.

Calibration of the equipment is different between departments. In some cases you have to report immediately if you have an exceedance; in other cases you have five days to do it. In some provinces the analysis of dioxins and furans is required 60 days following the sampling; in another province it's 60 days following the end of the month. In some cases, where we have outside treatment facilities for the effluents of a company, the facilities are required to follow the regulations; under some provincial regulations, they're not.

It is complicated for people on the plant floor to manage these regulations. The people are there to run the mill. I think government has a responsibility to make the regulations understandable. In some cases the mills have 60 regulations to comply with. They must be aware of the contents of every one of these regulations. No one can ignore the law.

These discrepancies are specifically in Quebec—my colleague and I prepared this—but you have the same situations in testing methods in different provinces.

When we say we support harmonization, we mean much more than harmonization of enforcement. We want laws and regulations, especially regulations, to be harmonized for things such as testing methods. These things must be resolved, because we're spending money uselessly having two kinds of tests done in the laboratory. When we say harmonization, we mean much more than enforcement law.

I don't know if I covered all the topics—

Mr. Rick Casson: You just said, and I guess it's specific to your industry, that the provincial regulations in most cases are stricter than the federal regulations, did you not?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: Yes, they are. It's a fact. There might be an exception here and there, but I'd say 99% the discharge limits are stricter. Most of the provincial regulations cover other aspects, such as air emissions and waste. I'd say the federal regulations in our sector are included in the provincial regulations.

Mr. Claude Roy (Senior Director, Environment, Health and Safety, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): I have a comment on that.

As an example, in Quebec the regulation specifies what is required for an emergency response plan and spill prevention program. It's greatly detailed in the provincial regulation in Quebec. In the federal regulation it's just a little paragraph saying you must have that. So to make sure you meet the requirement in the province of Quebec, you have to do a lot more, be more stringent.

• 0955

Mr. Rick Casson: When we were talking about harmonization, we felt that if CEPA was the base for enforcement and regulation and standards—we're at standards more than anything—it would protect environment to a greater degree than in the provinces.

There was a thought that if this harmonization were put into place and the provinces had more control, there would be a lessening of environmental standards. You're saying exactly the opposite.

Ms. Lucie Desforges: You're right. I'm saying the opposite. In the pulp and paper sector we feel the federal government is in a better position to actually enforce its laws since the signing of the agreement in the pulp and paper sector in the province of Quebec.

Now the federal government has access to all the data of the inspections of the provincial government, any monitoring they do. The federal government even has access to the data the federal regulations did not require.

Prior to those agreements being signed, the federal government did not have access to the data. Now the federal government has access to all that data, and it can take the proper action. If it wishes to go a step further and do compliance promotions, warnings, prosecutions—it has available much more data and information on inspection activities than they did in the past, prior to these agreements being signed.

We feel they are in a better position now, contrary to what is being said in the newspapers. We feel the position is strengthened.

Mr. Claude Roy: Take again the province of Quebec. In our sector mills are not located downtown. They're located in remote cities. Environment doesn't have regional offices in all the different regions, but in each province the provincial government has regional offices that are closer to the operations of our member companies. In some instances the provincial offices are closer to the mills.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Herron and then Mr. Pratt, please.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a similar question, maybe building on what Mr. Casson touched on.

In brief I'm very aware from the Atlantic Canada perspective of the impact that the pulp and paper industry has on our overall economy. I've been through every mill in Atlantic Canada at least five times over the last past ten years. A lot of those towns are very small towns, as well, so any kind of closure or downsizing is felt, especially given the cyclical market you guys have.

I did find interesting your comment that when the effluent regulations were brought in around 1990, under the previous Conservative government, initially there was a knee-jerk reaction that you weren't so sure you were able to do this, because in 1990 you were going through one of your worst downturns. It was similar to what you're going through right now.

If regulations were brought to a higher standard, do you think you'd be able to meet those sorts of things? If they push the envelop such as on greenhouse gases and those sorts of things that make you even more energy efficient, do you think you'd have a problem meeting those kinds of issues?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: We believe in environmental standards that are based on science and risk assessment. If it is justified scientifically and we can evaluate an important risk to the health of Canadians or the environment, we will take measures to take action.

As for greenhouse gases, just for your knowledge, our industry has already reduced way below the Kyoto target on greenhouse gas emissions. We are 12% below 1990 levels. As I was saying, even though we had an increase by 17% of production, we are continuing our work in that area. We want to do more. Energy efficiency makes good business sense, so we're following that path. We're working very hard on trying to enhance carbon sinks in Canada. We're working on a strategy to help Canada meet its target and make sure our industry is well positioned in that area, but it's hard for me to say that we'll meet any target.

• 1000

If the standards are clearly established, as I was saying, based on science and risk, we have the ability to take action. We have a research centre doing enormous work on closed-cycle pulp and paper mills, where we will not be 100% eliminating effluent, but it will be virtually eliminated. No regulation is forcing us to do that. We are installing these technologies in many mills, and we are having success. So we are following the sustainable track that we committed to in the pulp and paper industry.

Mr. John Herron: I guess that's kind of where I'm going on. Without the regulations that were brought in in 1990, if it wasn't done by regulation, it's probably quite factual that you weren't going to move in that direction on a voluntary basis.

So what makes me a little bit concerned is that you touched on the aspect that the provincial regulations are quite higher than what the federal regulations happen to be. Well, under the concept of harmonization, some individuals and the environmental NGOs are concerned about the fact that the standard that gets accepted will be the lowest common denominator in that regard.

How do you envision this? Will provincial regulations be followed or will federal regulations be followed in terms of standards? New Brunswick has a higher standard, I think, than the federal government has. I think that's true, isn't it?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: My understanding is that New Brunswick had adopted the federal limits, so they're equivalent, but you could say that they're not as strict as in another province, such as the province of Quebec.

But in the pulp and paper sector, what we are seeing is that the provincial regulations would be applied, and not the lowest common denominator. I can't even imagine we would be going to the federal limits. It will be the provincial limits that will be enforced in the province.

Just to touch on the first point you were bringing up, yes, regulations did play an important role in our—

Mr. John Herron: Would you say the principal role, the primary role?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: A very important role, but there were many other aspects, such as the market acceptance of our products, chlorine-free products, etc. Many mills had met the dioxin and furan regulations before the regulations came into force. Why would they have done that if the regulations were the only thing pushing them?

Market acceptance is very important, as are other voluntary initiatives, such as our closed-loop mills that we're working on. No regulation is asking us to install that technology, but still we're going forward with that to meet regulations, to satisfy our clients, and to satisfy the communities that are around us.

Did you have anything to add on that?

Mr. Claude Roy: I would just like to add the fact that we are exporting 80% of our production, and the European market is very sensitive to the environment, I would say more sensitive than the North American consumers and the North American market. We have no choice but to be sensitive to the market forces in terms of environment.

Also, paper being a commodity product, especially if we take eastern Canada, we have a lot of older mills with older paper machines, and these machines are being converted into value-added product. Whenever you do these kinds of modifications, you always look at what can be done in terms of environment and in terms of energy efficiency.

We have to keep in mind that if you go back 15 years, the average water usage in a standard paper mill was way above 200 cubic metres per tonne. It's now down to below 70, and it's still coming down. So we're getting more efficient. And there's no regulation to force the industry to reduce its water usage. It went down threefold in the last 15 years.

• 1005

Mr. John Herron: My last comment is that it seems to be more market driven—which most things really are—and regulation driven than perhaps environmentally driven, and that's why we have that check and balance there.

Ms. Lucie Desforges: It's all part of the big picture, I'd say, and we're also creating some accountability mechanisms for ourselves. The CPPA has developed a program called “the environmental profile data sheet”. These are like nutritional labels for our products. Each mill that voluntarily participates will fill in this data sheet with the environmental attributes of its products and will have it verified by an independent third party. Clients are requiring this EPDS, this data sheet, from the mills, so we can't back off now and say okay, we'll slack off on this and slack off on that. We have our own accountability mechanisms to our clients and customers.

So yes, regulations are part of it, along with our clients and our accountability mechanisms, and it all fits into the big picture. And we have to make

[Translation]

judicious use of all those components. Moreover, it is not being stated that the regulations are not important or that they play no role. Regulations have their place, but let's not put all our eggs in the same basket. In fact, that is our position.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Pratt, then Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take issue with the comments with respect to the harmonization accord. The information that we received not long ago, within the last month or so, from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund seems to be directly counter to what you've been telling us here this morning. I'm just looking over some of the documents they provided to us. I'll read some of the comments here so you can have the benefit of the exact phraseology:

The documents provided by the federal government indicate widespread and alarming lack of enforcement by the federal and provincial governments. According to DFO records, in 1996, at least 20 pulp and paper mills in Quebec have been discharging toxic water pollution that exceeds regulatory standards (one mill had 98 violations). Of the total of 189 violations indicated in DFO records, there were no prosecutions.

So that's 189 violations in 1996 alone by Quebec mills. The toxic effluent regs were apparently adopted in 1992, and the mills were supposed to stop discharging by the end of 1995. Why the problem?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: Needless to say, we were expecting this question.

First, I'd like to reiterate the fact that under the accord and the federal-provincial agreement we have in Quebec, both governments retain their legal powers of intervention.

That being said, if the Canadian government feels that the situation deserves legal action, it had and has the power to intervene. The federal-provincial agreement in Quebec does not preclude any action from the federal government or the provincial government.

The fact that some groups, as you were mentioning, feel that the proper actions weren't taken with regard to some of the violations they identified has nothing to do with harmonization in our mind. It has to do with their dissatisfaction with the way the federal government and the provincial government are handling these violations. Had there been no agreement, we are not convinced that the situation would be any different.

• 1010

Secondly, as I was mentioning earlier to Mr. Herron, we feel the federal government is in a better position to enforce their regulations since the federal-provincial agreement in Quebec. What they do with it is up to them, but they still have the power. They have the information. They can go ahead and enforce the regulations. Harmonization is not stopping them from enforcing and prosecuting, sending warnings, etc.

The other thing I wanted to do was to put some context around these 198 violations. We have to understand that this large sum of numbers is....

[Translation]

The number is very high because in many cases concerning regulations on pulp and paper, if toxic effluent is detected, for example, the frequency of tests must be accelerated. You can do tests every week and continue that way until you get three consecutive non toxic tests. That helps increase the figures a little.

Now, there are mills that have more than one waste water outfall. That's the case for Tembec, for example, that has three outfalls. In 1996, Tembec had three. So it has to do three tests, every month, on each outfall. Once again, those figures are multiplied by three because the potential is greater. You have to put the whole thing in context.

Moreover, in 1996 we had

[English]

the start of the secondary treatment plants. These are very complex technologies that work with living micro-organisms. It's not just an on-off switch. It's very complicated. When there are some disruptions it can take a few weeks or a month to set it back up. It's really not a mechanical technology. It's very complex and it's the best available technology right now. We are using that technology but there is an adjustment period and 1996 was an adjustment period.

I am told by the Quebec regional office of Environment Canada, which I contacted yesterday, that the violations have been reduced by more than half for this toxicity parameter alone. So the situation is resolved. Maybe there's a case here and there, but government still has its right and its powers to intervene and take action.

I'm not sure that harmonization is what created the problem in the first place. It's the actions of the federal government that were taken. Maybe they do not satisfy the environmental groups, but it has nothing to do with harmonization.

Mr. David Pratt: I'm just thinking again about the harmonization side. What has the pulp and paper industry association done in terms of public statements with respect to a national standard across the board so that the various companies don't have to deal with different regulations as they go from province to province? Has your association been outspoken that way in its efforts with governments to go for a level playing field across the board?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: In our communications with bureaucrats, with governments, and in most of our public documents we have always been supportive of harmonization. I'm a bit confused. I'm wondering if you're leading to the point that Mr. Herron was leading to that we're striving for the lowest common denominator. We're not. We're just asking that each province make sure that the regulations are harmonized so that we can more easily manage them and so that public resources are spent more intelligently.

We have been on record saying that we support harmonization in federal-provincial environmental regulations in the past and we have made that intervention whenever possible.

Mr. David Pratt: What I'm getting at really is one standard across the board. It seems to me that the companies would benefit from having one regulatory regime to deal with and I just haven't heard much from your association in terms of being forceful on that point. It seems to me as well that in some respects it would make sense, but in other respects it probably wouldn't.

• 1015

Ms. Lucie Desforges: Exactly. We have to take into account the receiving environment. Every environment is different in each province. Maybe for some parameters it does make sense but for others it doesn't.

We're asking for a minimum. I think the federal regulations provide that level playing field, that minimum level. The provincial regulations go a step further and they will develop the regulations according to their own specific environment and what kind of discharging and receiving environment they have.

Right now we feel the regulatory framework in the pulp and paper sector is adequate in the sense that it provides a level playing field. There are some adjustments here and there in the province, but don't make it more complicated by having different test methods and different reporting requirements. This is what makes it unmanageable.

As I was saying, we should try to harmonize enforcement so that public resources are better spent. If you harmonize areas like the pulp and paper sector, where the federal regulation is inclusive in the provincial regulations, then you can go out and do the job that is solely of a federal nature, like imports and exports of hazardous wastes, ocean dumping, etc. If you're devoting resources to pulp and paper when the provincial government is duplicating what you're doing, I'm pretty sure we're not dedicating the appropriate resources to pure federal regulations.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Mr. Gertler, welcome. We got a slow start, so perhaps you could keep your remarks to five to ten minutes. We have to be out of the room by 11 o'clock and a number of people still haven't had a chance to address the witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Franklin Gertler (Member, Quebec Environmental Law Centre): Sorry I'm late, Mr. Chairman, but the conditions on the road this morning were a bit unusual. I'll try to be very brief.

Before getting into the presentation for the Centre, I'd like to take this opportunity to give a quick comment on an answer that's been given concerning this whole matter of harmonization.

I won't insist in more than necessary on the detail of the data that were revealed through access to information about the pulp and paper mills. I have here a copy of our press release on that matter as well as some documentation. I'll leave them with the clerk.

On the other hand, I would like to say that in the area of harmonization or intergovernmental agreements, it's not enough to say that the federal government, in this instance, will keep its right of intervention. Legally and constitutionally speaking, it is certain that a simple agreement between ministers cannot have the effect of changing the Constitution, decreasing the powers of the federal government or cancel or repeal an act of Parliament. However, we should be down to earth as we live in a real world.

I think the witnesses you've heard during the last few weeks have shown that it's not simply a matter of legislation or powers, but also a matter of resources, willpower and technical wherewithal to enforce the legislation.

What we fear and what we see is that in agreements of this kind when one of the governments involved takes all the responsibility, then the other one progressively abandons it and gradually loses its capacity to exercise. It will then lose the necessary budgets and won't have the competent staff anymore, the necessary technical knowledge and especially the political legitimacy.

If, after a five-year absence, overnight, a federal inspector shows up at a mill, how will he be greeted? He'll be asked what he's doing there and he'll be told to mind his own business.

I think the testimony you've heard from people responsible for the Ontario region, having to do with the fisheries legislation, has shown that when a province decides not to enforce a piece of federal legislation, then it's very difficult for the federal government to go back to its previous role because it doesn't have the means to do so anymore.

• 1020

That said, I think you've already got a copy of the notes we submitted concerning my presentation here today. I won't read them in their entirety. Amongst other things, you'll find the mission statement and some historical facts about the Quebec Environmental Law Centre. I'll also give the clerk other documents as I mentioned them. They could be made available to your research staff.

Concerning the substance of my presentation, I would like to mention, and you'll find this spelled out in my text, that I found out there was an exchange the other day between Yvon Charbonneau, MP, and my colleague, Paul Mundoon from the Canadian Environmental Law Association concerning the competence of his organization in the matter of Quebec's environmental problems.

On that, I can tell you that we're doing the same work—the name of Canadian Environmental Law Association is perhaps a bit misleading—but we lack funding. They get statutory funding from the Ontario government. We do not enjoy that sort of funding neither provincially nor federally. For many years now, we've been asking our MPs and federal ministers. I would encourage you to advise your Cabinet colleagues to fund our activities.

Generally speaking, I'd like to say that our way of looking at the problem you're examining presently is expressed in our objectives. We believe in the legal approach. We also believe in public involvement. We believe that the regulatory process and enforcing the legislation in a really public and transparent way are the best guarantees the environment will be protected. I think that the testimony heard here during the last few weeks show that there's a lack of data, knowledge, advertising and transparency concerning the enforcement of our laws.

I would like to emphasize a few points very briefly, Mr. Chairman. As far as we're concerned, both levels of government have a role to play. The Supreme Court has just confirmed this in certain respects as it did previously in the matter of the Oldman River. What that court has just confirmed has to do with the Hydro Quebec matter. Without getting into constitutional politics, in our opinion, as long as we're under the present regime, both governments must exercise their powers.

We also deplore the absence of the federal government in that area in Quebec. There were budget cuts both federally and provincially and we question the province's capacity to take over from the federal government.

I would also like to emphasize that they're not quite interchangeable. Both levels of government are not necessarily equivalent in that area. The matter of conflict of interest still exists and was raised here before you by the Environment Canada representatives a few days ago. There's that aspect also. Moreover, and this must be recognized, Environment Canada also has superior means available to a certain point, in the area of scientific investigations.

So I can tell you that my colleagues from industry—as for me, I'm in private practice but mainly on the environmental group side—are far more fearful of the federal green police than the provincial one, in Quebec, because they do their work better.

As for the voluntary approach, we're opposed to it. It's not against our principles but, generally speaking, we're not in favour of it. In fact, it has always existed. The legislation is there and people have to be in voluntary compliance or face the consequences set out in the legislation.

• 1025

The other day, you were given a beautiful curve to show that most people were in compliance with the legislation, that some were overperformers whereas others, at the other end of the curve, weren't doing so well. The demonstration was to try to show you that you can't count only on firm reprisals but also on efficacious education.

All that is true. But the fact that there's a limited number of delinquents is due, in part, to proceedings being initiated. In our opinion, the proceedings must be maintained to create the atmosphere that encourages people to become "volunteers".

I'll wrap it up very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Concerning intergovernmental agreements, as I've just said, not only do we fear what they contain on the strictly legal plane, but also their effects as to the granting of budgets and staff. Once you're faced with a done deed, it's difficult to backpaddle on the delegation of powers or arrangements that have already been agreed to.

Besides, those agreements are often very vague and not very well known. I'll just mention one case that caught my attention. Mr. Gerry Swanson, from the Habitat Management and Environmental Science Directorate, came before you the other day to tell you about the history of the sharing of jurisdiction between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. He told you about a letter from the Prime Minister dated 1971. I find that curious because there is an agreement in due form between both departments signed by both ministers in 1985. To my knowledge, that's the one that prevails at this point. I can give you the exact title of that agreement. This could be due to forgetfulness on the part of departmental staff or there's some confusion within the department.

So, even if within the ranks of the same federal family you don't always know what rules you're working under, I find that a concern. It's sort of what happens in the case of intergovernmental agreements in general. If we were to encourage you to do something, it would be to insist that the agreements governing these operations being made public, that they be published together with an index and that they be accessible. In the present state of affairs, you have to visit all the regional offices and meet the people who know the facts to actually know what's going on.

For the record, I would point out that I have before me the English title of the 1995 agreement. It's the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment on the Subject of the Administration of Section 33 of the Fisheries Act. As Mr. Swanson indicated, clause 33 essentially is worded the same way as clause 36 of the present legislation.

As for reforms, we're in favour not only of an increase in budgets for activities and implementation, but also of a greater public participation, more specifically of a right of recourse for citizens. In that respect, we would point out that the recourse provided for by Part II of Bill C-74 was absolutely inadequate and would have been practically useless. We hope that when the bill is examined once again, that won't be the case anymore.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, if I have documents to hand out, do I have to mention them in the record or can I simply hand them over? It would take me about a minute.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Just handing them over is fine.

One point I would make is when you're making your submissions, if possible, if we could have them in both languages, it makes it much easier for the committee.

Mr. Franklin Gertler: I apologize for that, but the time constraints were such that it was difficult to get this in. I can certainly supply a translation if that would be helpful.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): We'll do that; that's fine.

Mr. Franklin Gertler: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you very much.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just so that we can keep our committee records straight, it would be useful if the witness could read the titles of the documents so we know what he's handing in.

• 1030

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Perhaps you could read the titles, then, Mr. Gertler.

Mr. Franklin Gertler: Fine. I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, I'm just going to provide you with a pamphlet on the Environmental Law Centre. It identifies who we are. It's called Si l'environnement avait ses droits.

Beyond that, I wish to provide you with, as I said, the press release from our group and from other groups with respect to the statistics on pulp and paper and the problems with infractions under the Fisheries Act. That's entitled Un grand nombre de compagnies de pâtes et papiers du Québec ne respectent pas la Loi fédérale sur les Pêcheries. That's a press release of January 26.

As a matter of interest, I'm also going to provide you with a brief excerpt from the September 1990 report of the Commission d'enquête sur les déchets dangereux au Québec, and it's entitled Les déchets dangereux de Québec. This excerpt shows the concerns of the commission regarding the lack of political will and the problems with enforcement at the provincial level in that area in Quebec and also at the federal level. That commission was of course chaired by your colleague, Mr. Charbonneau.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Would you please be very quick.

Mr. Franklin Gertler: I also want to give you, as a general background, a piece I wrote in 1993 called “Lost in Intergovernmental Space”, which is about intergovernmental agreements.

Finally, in two versions, a long and a short one, I would like to submit a discussion paper that was done for the Canadian Environmental Network, which I authored with the executive director of the Environmental Law Centre, Yves Corriveau. It is called “ENGO Concerns and Policy Options Regarding the Administration and Delegation...” and so forth. It relates to the Fisheries Act. There's also a shorter version of that, which is a published article from the Canadian Environmental Law Reports, which is called “Will Protection of Fish Habitats Survive the Provincial Outing on the Federal Pond?”

Thank you. I'm sorry for the length of the presentation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Jordan, perhaps you could keep your addresses to five minutes each, because we have to be out of here by 11 o'clock.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): In terms of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, you made the statement that market interests have a major influence on your decisions of environment impacts and effluent discharges or on the whole industrial consciousness of the impact of health, safety, and environment. I just didn't like the way it sounded, because as a Canadian we live in an abundant piece of land that's pristine. In a very short while we've polluted ourselves to extinction. We can't even take a cup of water out of our rivers any more.

Your industry, aside from federal or provincial levels of effluent measures, pollutes. It pollutes daily. You put effluents into rivers, into the air. And you mention about eventual virtual elimination or closed-loop systems. Why isn't that being done now? Is that where you're going? Our environment is so crucial. Up to 75% of Canadians are conscious of their environment.

As politicians, as a regulatory agency—Environment Canada, Fisheries Canada, and the provincial jurisdictions—we want to regulate your industry. And we don't seem to have an impact on you. You give the market interests of Europeans more weight than our concerns—that's what I heard.

Ms. Lucie Desforges: Perhaps I can put that more into context.

As far as a closed-loop system is concerned, you were asking why we aren't doing it now. We need to do some further research. We've invested in an $88 million research project with the federal government to further the technologies for closed-cycle mills. Now there are very technical problems linked with corrosion and recycling, etc. We have to discover the new technologies that will enable us to fix that. We're almost there. We just need to fine-tune that. Some mills in Canada have already successfully installed closed-loop mills.

• 1035

As for the performance of our industry, we've included a couple of graphs on how we've reduced our pollution in receiving environments, especially where effluents are concerned. There's been an immense reduction in BOD levels and total suspended solids. We're down by 87% since 1975 in total suspended solids, with a 96% reduction since 1975 in BOD, or biochemical oxygen demand.

As I did say, regulations had an important role to play, but I'm saying that it's not the only thing that has influenced our industry's performance. It is a big part, but our markets also play an important role. Canadian regulation is important for our markets. If we didn't have the stringent regulations we do right now, we wouldn't be in such a good position before certain markets.

So regulations do help us, but we're saying we have to look at this in a broader sense and focus on regulations and on other aspects as well, where there's more flexibility and we can build on that while preserving the economic benefits this sector brings to Canada.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think what you have to realize is that when markets are at an international level, the Canadian credibility is not necessarily born from the industry. It's the regulations, the government's levels, our credibility as a country, as a nation, that gives your industry the international mark, or the international flag to raise.

In terms of regulations, you can have regulations, but how about enforcements? Give us examples of where enforcements have changed direction for your industry. Show us examples of people who have been prosecuted. There are prosecution documents in CEPA and also in the Fisheries Act. Give me a case of a prosecution that has set your industry onto the right track.

Ms. Lucie Desforges: A specific example? I can't come up with one right now.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There are no prosecutions?

Ms. Lucie Desforges: There are. You can find some on the Internet right now, on Environment Canada's Green Lane. I have a few in my files somewhere here.

So they're ongoing. I do not have the precise data. I cannot comment for a specific mill.

As I was saying in the presentation earlier, enforcement of the regulations is important within our sector. I don't like my neighbour to cheat on his income tax and get away with it. It's the same thing within our industry. Canadian competitors don't like to see their counterpart on the other side of the river not comply with federal or provincial regulations and the regulations not be enforced.

Enforcement is important. We're not saying that prosecutions should not be part of it. What I am saying is that the intensity of enforcement should not only equate to prosecutions, because I don't think these reductions you're seeing here on these graphs were solely due to prosecutions.

Our industry has taken on the responsibility to meet the federal or provincial regulations. Not all of them have been threatened by prosecutions, and still they are reducing significantly their emissions to the environment. Prosecutions are a part of it, but there are also many other tools.

• 1040

Mr. Claude Roy: It's always difficult to find an example, but there's the case with MacMillan Bloedel in Powell River, B.C., where a tank of chlorine ruptured and the chlorine went into the river. They were prosecuted, found guilty, and had to pay the fines and everything. But this event kind of brought the industry in B.C. to say these things can happen; we also can have a ruptured tank in our own mill.

So all the industries in B.C. got together and had a workshop with consultants and experts to help them in terms of assessing the risk. That brought the whole industry to really start to look at their emergency response, how you can react in terms of emergency response and also how you can manage a risk. These things happen; it happened once and the company was fined.

I don't say that the reaction of the industry was because the company was fined, but the fact that these things happen and you then pollute the river by a tank that ruptures brought the rest of the industry to really start working on that in their different mills in the other provinces. But there was a fine there.

Ms. Lucie Desforges: So in this case the—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I have a couple of quick questions. In the interest of time, it may be a case where you don't know the answer now but you may supply it.

I want to start off by mentioning something Mr. Gertler said that hit a nerve with me; that is, downsizing and the cutting of budgets really does have an effect. You put it very well in terms of capacity, technological capacity for governments to intervene, human resources, research capacity, and I'm going to add intellectual capacity to that, too. These are some very complicated concepts we're dealing with here.

I have a couple of points. First, you made mention of the fact that companies need to be aware that pollution is waste and there's a financial loss associated with that. If you expand the accounting practices to include the costs of degradation to the environment, then I think what I'm looking for or what I would hope is that the association then tries to find examples of mills that have done that and at the end of the day are better off for doing it. What is the association doing to try to encourage member mills to go down that road?

When I look at the documentation here, it's put together quite well. But I see things like if cost-effective closed-loop technologies can be developed, mills can be upgraded rather than torn down. But if you're incorporating the costs of pollution into your accounting practices, then there shouldn't be an “if”.

We have to deal with these issues, and I think if you're committed to full-cost accounting, then what I would like to see—and maybe it's a case of providing information at a later date—is if you can show that a mill that really isn't performing well under a variety of criteria can adopt these sorts of practices, clean up its activities and at the end of the day be better off. That kind of success story could then be applied to other member mills. There is a certain mindset of this environment and economic collision. We have to get around that. I think that might serve to sort of set the tone or change the attitude among the members.

Not right now, but I'd be interested in having information on mills that may have gone down that road and have been successful, because it's something I'm interested in and I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Quickly, then, my second question: In your document “Effective Enforcement of Environmental Regulations in Canada”, on page 4 you say: “...regulations should be enforced in a manner which is transparent, understandable, equitable, measurable and consistent”. I don't think anyone would argue with that. But you go on to say: “...remedial action [should be] consistent with the intent of the regulation and the protection of the environment—not just the letter of the law”.

I wonder if you can think of a specific case where somebody's interpretation of the intent of the regulation could be applied in a more consistent way than the letter of the law and the environment could be better off at the end of the day. Did you have a particular regulation in mind? Is the regulation written wrong, or do the inspectors need that kind of leeway?

I don't see where that fits into the consistency thing if somebody is making those kinds of judgments based on their own personal interpretation of what the intent of that regulation is. I think that has inconsistency written all over it. Was there a specific regulation you had in mind there, or was that just a general statement?

Ms. Fiona Cooke: That was more of a general statement. I think the intent of any regulation or law is net environmental improvement. I think what we're saying is all the factors that can be used to result in that kind of a—

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering if it would be possible for you to supply me with a situation, because I'm interested in what your definition then is of “protection of the environment” at the end of the day.

• 1045

I used to be a teacher—can you tell? I've just given you two pieces of homework.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's just I think we'd be better off if you gave it some thought and maybe supplied something to me.

Thank you, Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Asselin and then Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Franklin Gertler: Mr. Chairman, could I just make a remark briefly on this question?

To be fair to my colleagues, one thing I've been thinking about is when somebody fails to produce a report on time and it's simply a technical violation, but of course the counterpoint is that the producing of the reports is asked for by Parliament or by the regulation for a reason, and it's part of a preventive strategy.

I would like to comment on your more substantive remark about whether it's good economics. One of the things that's struck me in my private practice is I've had occasion to see documents in which there has been federal financial assistance to pulp and paper mills. I'm talking about $50 million, $60 million, $70 million, or $100 million loan guarantees, that sort of thing. These are one-pagers. There is not a single line on a requirement of full compliance with federal environmental regulation. That wouldn't be a question of federal overstepping of the bounds. It's simply if you want the federal money, you have to really get in line.

So there's a kind of “spending green” issue for this committee, which you might take back to some of your colleagues in Public Works or in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board. Just as we may have conditions about hiring women or hiring aboriginal people, there may be a need for environmental conditions in procurement, and certainly in the provision of financial assistance by the federal government.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Mr. Asselin, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): In front of me, I have an agreement between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada dated November, 1997. This agreement will be in effect for three years and should end in the next century.

In paragraph 8.1 on page 5, under "prosecution" it says:

@ti24 8.1 Quebec and Canada acknowledge that they each retain authority to intervene in the case of alleged violations of their respective regulations.

That's just as a follow-up to your earlier introduction. You were saying that the federal government withdrew from a jurisdictional field under the agreement it had signed, but that it was omnipresent or wasn't present at all. It is also said that it wants to implement the agreement which was signed with the Government of Quebec and that it is faced with a pulp and paper mill maker with a copy of the agreement or a copy of the offence.

We know that under the agreement, the Government of Quebec must report to the federal government. In this document, the matter of the federal government's absence is addressed and we know that the federal government is practically absent from the environmental area in Quebec. On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that when the federal government intervenes, the quality of its investigations is often superior to that of those investigations undertaken by the province.

That's where it becomes a bit contradictory. They're not there at all or only occasionally and when they do intervene their investigations are supposedly superior to those conducted by Quebec. First of all, I'd like to know who's responsible for the enforcement. Who visits you most regularly? Does the federal government intervene in extreme or extraordinary cases based on a report made by the Quebec government?

I thought I had understood that the federal government people were not there, or practically not, or that they were there within the context of a single agreement. The report tells us that when they do intervene, they're far more efficacious. But if they undertake one investigation a year, I imagine they have the time to think, examine, intervene and become very comfortable.

That makes all the difference if you're asking the Quebec government to intervene everywhere at the same time whereas the federal government intervenes only once a year to deal with a business that has had a report or a complaint registered against it. At that point, I have no problems believing that it is far more efficacious. I'd like an explanation as to why they are superior if they never intervene.

• 1050

Mr. Franklin Gertler: First of all, Mr. Chairman, as to who is knocking on the doors of the paper mills, I would ask our friends from the association to tell us what happens in the field. They're in a better position than I to tell you.

I don't think there's any contradiction. What you're saying about the agreement is true. But this agreement goes back to 1997. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it replaces another one from 1994. It's a relatively recent agreement.

Even though it is true that, formally, the federal government still has the authority to intervene, we're saying that experience shows... More particularly, in the Oldman River case in Alberta, for example. That's the case of a province that was shocked or that dug its heels in because the federal level intervened after many years of absence. It was believed it did not have the right to do so anymore. That's what we're saying.

As for the supposed contradiction, I don't think there is any. We're saying that the federal level is practically absent. Occasionally, like in the Kronos Canada affair or the Tioxide affair, the federal level did intervene. This is not about pulp and paper anymore. In the Tioxide case, it did so after 20 years of hesitation, exchange of letters and "after you, my dear Alphonse" with the Government of Quebec. There finally was an out of court settlement involving a very heavy fine under the Fisheries Act.

Do we want to manage the whole thing using extreme cases or is it better to proceed and follow things day-by-day?

We're simply saying that you should be careful; if you take the federal out of the environment sector, then make sure that the province has the necessary budget, personnel, and political will and expertise to carry out the work. Right now, provinces are cutting their budgets in every sector.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Just now, you seemed to say that either the pulp and paper industry, or the Quebec government were afraid of the federal green police. Is this federal green police something real, or is it something imaginary?

Mr. Franklin Gertler: I couldn't really tell you that. I'm simply saying that my colleagues from the private bar, who represent paper mills, are telling me that they are far more afraid of federal investigations than of provincial investigations. To give you a very technical example, the position chain is better done when dealing with samples.

Everyone saw the programs dealing with the O.J. Simpson case. Was the sample manipulated in a way to introduce foreign substances? Could the contaminating substance come from some other source? These are the questions that are put during criminal proceedings.

I'm told that the federal does a better job at this, than the province, in many cases.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): My first question deals with the financial support which you are hoping to get. You are referring to a conversation we had with your colleague Paul Muldoon regarding representation on a national scale. This exchange helped us to see that this organization, called the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is more competent when it has to respond to questions dealing with the situation in Ontario, for instance, or even in other provinces, although it is called "Canadian". Actually, we should rather be dealing with you or with organizations such as yours, to find out what's going on in Quebec.

You have stated that this association is funded by Ontario. And as far as you are concerned, you would like to get federal funding. Would that mean that you cannot get funding from Quebec which would be equivalent to the funding that the CELA gets from Ontario?

Then, you asked ministers for funding from discretionary funds. You are inviting us to press the federal government, to get permanent funding for you, I would imagine. Have you despaired of getting anything from the province or what?

• 1055

Mr. Franklin Gertler: In brief, we're still trying to get something from the province, but it has never seen fit to fund the activities of an organization such as ours through legal aid, as it is done in Ontario.

So, we find that we're being funded as I mentioned in my notes, on a project-by-project basis, and the project never involves criticizing or suing the government, you can be sure of that. It's mainly education, research or things of that kind which are relatively harmless.

At the federal level, we would like to have funding provided more on the long term or a more secure basis. We're simply raising the question of discretionary funds, Mr. Chairman, because we really do want to knock at every door. Basically, we haven't had any more complete or permanent funding from any other source, especially not from the Department of the Environment.

I must tell you that we're very happy to receive aid from CIDA. These budgets are in part reserved for our organization, but on the whole they are for other organizations. For instance, an organization similar to ours is being financed in Chile. This is an interesting fact. We're ready to do this in Chile, but not in Canada. It hurts less. I imagine that it looks better. We don't want CIDA to cut this off, but we would really like the federal to have the same attitude at home.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I must thank you for your invitation, but I'd like to make the point more specifically regarding the efforts you have made or the refusals that you have had to accept. On the other hand, these subsidies should not diminish your critical capacity.

Mr. Franklin Gertler: This is always a problem in Canada because we often have government funding rather than private sector funding as is the case in the United States.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I no longer have the quotation before me, but around three weeks ago, the Quebec network of environmentalist groups condemned very severely the environment performance of the provincial government of these past two years. They were mainly talking about promises that had not been kept, and broken commitments. They were comparing this government's environmental philosophy to the American Republican Act. Are you a member of this group or do you agree with the judgement of this group regarding the way the environmental management file has evolved in Quebec over the past two or three years?

Mr. Franklin Gertler: The Quebec Centre was among those who signed the bulletin which you are mentioning. We especially took part in preparing the legal and regulatory aspects of the criticism. And as such, we had seen a lack of progress in reform in Quebec and especially a very strong tendency toward deregulation for the sake of lightening the burden. They seem to be abandoning this field completely. We mentioned, among other things, many exemptions granted for environment assessments, for example, as indicating a certain disengagement of the government from this area.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, this concludes my exchange with our witness and reminds us that the environmental management file in Quebec has been deteriorating since it has been under the leadership of a person who had been very vigorous in applying federal powers as a former federal Minister of the Environment.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan, you have 30 seconds just to clean up, and then the clerk has some words of wisdom. We have to get out of here.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I will just clarify what Mr. Muldoon brought forward in his presentation when he was before the committee. He was speaking about the federal scene and would have spoken to the Quebec scene if he had known there were questions there. He just didn't have the exact numbers in front of him. CELA does have a national scope.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gilmour): Stephen.

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the wrap-up the committee had planned to have with Environment Canada officials for Thursday, the officials have informed us that they have a problem. They can't be available this week because of a possible tabling of CEPA, among other things. Also, the minister has other requirements. And next week the senior officials will be in Vancouver for GLOBE '98.

• 1100

They've also had some problems with regard to getting the information together for the committee and therefore they respectfully request that we hold off until the week of March 23.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Let's go to Vancouver.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

A voice: So there's no meeting on Thursday?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): That's what you've got.

The Clerk: However, Mr. Chairman, the Grand Council of the Crees is available tomorrow and the committee did want to have first nations' input. Would tomorrow, Wednesday, be appropriate, Mr. Chairman?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): That will be fine.

The Clerk: The Conservation Council of New Brunswick has sent us a very interesting brief and will be available next week, so with your permission I will call them.

Mr. Chairman, if possible, perhaps at the end of tomorrow afternoon's meeting, the staff would like to have a brief in camera meeting just to get initial feedback from the members on the testimony so far.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Okay.

I'd like to thank the witnesses, particularly because of our weather and getting a late start. I do apologize for us being in a bit of a rush to get everybody through. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.