ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

1110

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

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

1115

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

1120

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

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

The Chair

1125

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

1130

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

1135

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1140

The Chair

Mr. Tim Williams

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

1145

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1150

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

1155

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1200

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

1205

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1225

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Tim Williams

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

1230

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

1235

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

1240

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Ms. Kristen Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

1245

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

1250

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

1255

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 014

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a quorum.

The researchers have provided us with the amendments to chapters 1, 2, and 3. They are much welcomed, and we thank the researchers for them.

Today, it would be nice if we could check out chapter 4 and see how much progress we can make. It starts with a reference to Bill C-9, as you see in paragraph 4.1, and then it describes the key changes or key challenges, if you like. They're in the form of nine bullets. I would like to look at them in a critical manner to see whether there is any duplicating language or redundant language.

I would invite you to go to the first one, “A Clear Vision for Environmental Assessment”, on page 17. It is a good discussion, over several pages. It ends with a phenomenally long recommendation, in which we perhaps need some help in making it perhaps more punchy. Keep in mind, too, that of course we are addressing the public with a public issue, but we are also addressing that part of the bureaucracy and the political system that needs to be convinced there is a need for a clear vision.

With these introductory remarks intended more to warm up the atmosphere, I would like to invite your comments.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): In the fifth bullet, is that just a typographical error?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you. I was thinking that we maybe had a new word out there.

The Chair: Do we agree that the title “A Clear Vision” is one we want to adopt? If we do, we might then examine what the clear vision is all about, and plunge into paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I may comment on the title a little later. However, for now, as you already mentioned during the previous meeting, we could focus specifically on federal environmental assessment.

We could specify that we want to formulate a clear vision of the federal environmental assessment process, given that this is our area of responsibility. This might help us to give the report a clearer focus. In short, instead of focussing on environmental assessment in general, we could concentrate on drawing up a clear profile of the federal environmental assessment process.

The Chair: Thank you for your input.

[English]

We can insert a word after “for”, and clearly make it “for Federal Environmental Assessment”, if that is the intent. Does the committee agree with that clarification of the clear vision?

Á (1115)

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): I have no problem with that.

The Chair: You have no problem with that?

Mr. Reed is giving us a blessing. That's a remarkable feat this early in the morning.

Could we now have comments beyond the title, on paragraphs 4.2 to 4.11? Does anything there strike you as being in need of improvement?

I have a great problem in wrestling with the recommendation, and I'm moving to the recommendation in the hope that you are ready for it, because it needs to be slimmer. It needs to be made crisper and less wordy, if possible—and I must confess that I did try that before, but without tangible results.

The phrase is:

that emphasizes the importance of achieving tangible results in environmental assessments, both in terms of project sustainability and ecosystem integrity....

You can emphasize the importance until you are blue in the face, but I don't know whether that is what we want to register, so I'm seeking some help here. For instance, I would be inclined to simplify it by amending it to read—but I'm putting this forward with a question mark—“to incorporate an approach that would achieve a tangible results”, thus skipping “that emphasizes the importance of”. It's a shortcut, so to say, and I would seek some comments on that shortcut. I would then stop at “integrity”, replace the comma with a period, and turn the balance into a separate sentence, a thought that would stand by itself, namely the development of performance measures and specific targets.

Could I get some feedback here?

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, at first glance, without trying to upset anybody, this looks like a tribute to the “American Association of Professional Bureaucrats”. There's one word you can condense it all down to, and that is “effective”.

The Chair: And where would you insert it?

Mr. Julian Reed: Just delete everything after the words “approach that” and put in “is effective”. I'm far from any expert on the choice of words, but I'll tell you that's—

The Chair: So you're suggesting that the text would read, “The Committee recommends that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be amended to incorporate an effective approach—”

Mr. Julian Reed: Sure, or go with “an approach that is effective”. As for all this extra dressing, I don't know whether it's essential to the report or not.

The Chair: “—that would achieve tangible results in environmental assessments, both in terms of project sustainability and ecosystem integrity.”

Mr. Julian Reed: The last sentence isn't needed. Take it out.

The Chair: The last part would become a sentence by itself, because it is an important thought to have targets and measures in relation to the results.

I don't know whether the targets and measures are needed in order to achieve results, so I wonder about “targets and performance measures be developed in relation to these results”. I wonder whether we have the right thought here. I'm looking to the researchers for help.

I take it, then, that the committee is favourably inclined to accept the following change:

The Committee recommends that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be amended to incorporate an effective approach that would achieve tangible results in environmental assessments, both in terms of project sustainability and ecosystem integrity.

Does that run well?

An hon. member: That sounds good.

The Chair: All right, so there we have a period.

Now, how do we tackle the second thought related to targets and measures to be developed in relation to these results? I don't know whether targets and performance are developed from results. My inclination is to say that targets and measures are needed in order to obtain certain results. We have to turn it around a little bit.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I agree. It's at the back but should be within the concept of the first two sentences. Is it possible that they're saying the specific targets and projects should be recorded or anything else? If they're not developed, then you wouldn't have achieved what we have set out to achieve in the first place. If targets have been met, then of course that fact is going to be recorded for the future and so on. I don't know what we're trying to say here in this last sentence at all.

Á (1120)

The Chair: The word “developed” could be replaced with the word “recorded”, and then the sentence can stand as it is now. We are then moving in a different direction, with “specific targets and performance measures be recorded in relation to the results.” That makes sense. I would therefore withdraw my suggestion of before, because it was on a different wavelength, so to say.

Could we have a comment from our researchers?

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): What we were hoping to address with this part of this recommendation was the fact that witnesses told the committee that the current test used in environmental assessments—that is, the significance of the adverse environmental effects—is not getting at a tangible result in terms of better ecosystem health and better sustainability of projects. We therefore wanted to suggest a recommendation that deals with shifting that orientation, so that we're looking at getting to better sustainability and better ecosystem integrity in the process. There need to be targets and performance measures that have to do with that, as opposed to the significance of adverse environmental effects.

When I think about what Mr. Caccia was suggesting, the second sentence could read, “This Committee further recommends that specific targets and performance measures be developed in order to achieve these results.” That does take the recommendation to a second, necessary point.

And the third part of this long recommendation would be that there be a definition of the term “significant”. That definition could point the whole process in the direction of better ecosystem integrity and project sustainability.

The Chair: Is the committee in agreement with this type of approach?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): This may be a bit off this specific point, but it goes to the whole issue of how we do the measurements. I'm really addressing paragraph 4.6, starting at the top of page 19.

In the last meeting or the one before that, I raised the use of alternatives in the Ontario legislation. We're talking about four purposes here under that type of a heading.

I don't believe you can do an environmental assessment that is valid—in the broad scope of the word “valid”—without looking at alternatives and requiring the hearing to take alternatives into account. That's an absolute, mandatory must. In that case, I think we need to change paragraph 4.6 to include that as an additional point. Therefore, it would be five purposes, not four.

I'm not sure I'm even comfortable with “purposes”. It's just that I believe we need to get the concept into paragraph 4.6, in terms of the hearing having to consider alternatives. You're looking at these other things that they have to consider, but you're not looking at alternatives. In some cases, and maybe in a lot of cases, they may be the determining factor, in that if alternatives are considered, the most effective way of guaranteeing sustainability, guaranteeing environmental protection, would be to go to an alternative rather than to the initial proposal that has been put before the hearing by the proponent.

If I could just finish that, Mr. Chair, I don't know if that would then require a change in the recommendations. I don't think it would, but I hadn't looked at it in terms of the purpose of the recommendations. It was more in the background. I think it would be covered by the two recommendations we have, so I wouldn't be looking at amending the recommendations.

The Chair: All right, let's proceed in the proper sequence.

In looking at paragraph 4.6 then, if we are to incorporate the fifth point as proposed by Mr. Comartin, the fifth purpose, let's just see whether or not we can create some language. He's telling us something that is a very valid point. An alternative would be an important purpose.

Á (1125)

Mr. Joe Comartin: I would suggest that if you're going to insert it, Mr. Chair, it should go about midway through the full paragraph, where it says “ensure that projects...do not cause significant adverse environmental effects”, etc. I would then put another phrase in there, “and considers alternatives to the proposal”. It would then go on with “ensure that there be an opportunity for public participation”. I think it should be inserted in there. I think it would flow best from there.

The Chair: This is before where it says, “These four purposes are important.” We insert it in there.

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, the phrase before that one.

The Chair: Then that one becomes “These five purposes are important.” Fine.

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher): The way that phrase is set up, it starts out by saying, “The legislated purposes of CEAA as it stands are”. It's actually just listing the four purposes as they stand now within CEAA. An additional purpose or a fifth purpose would be outside of that, and I was thinking we might end with it, after, “These four purposes are important.” We could then go with, “The Committee believes that a fifth purpose might also be required.”

I'm just talking off the top of my head.

The Chair: All right, that's fine.

We have now rounded off paragraph 4.6 to take into account alternatives.

Now, to go back to the recommendation, I will go to Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: In paragraph 4.2, with respect to assessment over the longer term, the following is noted:

...further government and parliamentary attention is required to ensure that projects, policies and programs are environmentally sound, and the integrity of ecosystems is protected.

I don't disagree with that statement, but I don't quite see how we can achieve the goal of protecting the integrity of ecosystems if federal policies and programs are not harmonized with provincial policies and programs.

Take climate change, for example. If provincial government plans, policies and programs aimed at countering climate change--transportation plans and strategic environmental assessments, for instance--are not harmonized with federal climate change plans, the desired objectives will never be attained.

That's why, in my opinion, we must adopt an approach similar to the one proposed in Europe where assessments, programs and policies would be harmonized by 2004. If we fail to make any effort to integrate and harmonize provincial and federal policies, there is no point even thinking that federal policies and programs will be respectful of the environment. The exercise would merely be a waste of our time.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other comments on this point?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Therefore, I propose that after the word “ecosystems”, we add the words “by harmonizing such projects, policies and programs with strategic environmental assessments conducted by the provinces”.

[English]

The Chair: No, we're not going to go in that direction—

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Why not? Would you care to suggest something?

[English]

The Chair: —because there may be a time when there is no harmonization possible.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I'm entitled to make a suggestion. Since the will of the committee is supreme, it can do whatever it likes.

[English]

The Chair: Having listened to the suggestion, I invite the committee to turn again to page 22, in order to see how we can complete the recommendation at the end of section 4.1.

We have improved the text of the first long paragraph. In the second one, the final sentence dealing with targets and performance measures, we decided to go with, “The Committee further recommends that....”

Will you please read it?

Á (1130)

Ms. Kristen Douglas: “The Committee further recommends that specific targets and performance measures be developed in order to achieve these results.”

The Chair: Fine. That would be helpful.

And what do we do with the term “significant”? Shall we leave it as it stands now, or can we refine it? Can we make it less vague than it is now? You'll remember the discussions we had. We would be recommending a definition, but we are not saying what the definition actually is. This leaves it open to a tremendous amount of interpretation.

How can “significant” be linked to “measurable environmental standards and targets”? How can that be achieved? That's what I'm asking myself.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I can't answer that question, Mr. Chairman, but I just had another thought.

When you say “significant adverse effects”, the comprehensive study list has a huge spectrum of impact. I'm sorry I was late, Mr. Chairman, because you may have covered this, but is the challenge here the issue of trying to quantify “adverse”? To me, in environmental terms, if there is an adverse effect, then it's significant. Why do we have to try to quantify the significant part? I just put that out there. If it's an adverse environmental impact, that should stand on its own, should it not?

The Chair: If I remember correctly, it could be minimal if it is left only to “adverse effect”, and it could therefore become a reason for opposing any form of change 100%. By dealing with a significant qualifier, the qualifier then somehow establishes two categories. Therefore, it would allow the practitioners of this discipline to determine what has to be taken seriously and what can be overlooked because its adverse nature is not so serious that it really should be taken into account. But it has always been a very subjective territory that we are walking in.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes, but the projects that are listed in the comprehensive study list are significant in terms of adverse impacts. They have been listed because they have a significant impact. Am I correct in that observation or conclusion?

The Chair: Ms. Douglas.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: The significance test is a more general test that applies across environmental assessments regardless of which process is followed. The comprehensive study list contains types of projects that are assumed, just by their nature, to be important enough to require an in-depth type of study, as opposed to a screening, which is a more superficial—maybe that's not the right word—or shorter process. But all projects are assessed to see whether or not they will have significant adverse environmental effects.

It's not the “adverse” part that witnesses objected to, it's the “significant” part, because when it has been applied as just really meaning “not insignificant”, significance has not been taken as a concrete measure. The witnesses that the committee heard from wanted to have this process addressing more concrete objectives, like ecosystem health, no natural destruction, and things that could actually be seen as environmental improvements. This language is therefore reflecting what the witnesses said.

Unfortunately, there was a consensus from witnesses that the lack of definition of “significant” is a problem, but there wasn't a consensus about what the definition should be. We didn't really have evidence from witnesses that would help us to answer that question. That's not to say there aren't people who have answers to it, but the consensus was more clearly around the need for a definition than any particular definition.

Á (1135)

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you for that, but it doesn't help me.

Mr. Chair, I don't know what to suggest.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: What is significant to you, sir, may not be significant to me.

The Chair: It's very subjective.

Mr. Roy Bailey: In this whole field of assessment, again you'd have a wide range of assessments. One would be significant, and the next.... I think this word has to go. It's too broad.

We had a definition here. It needs to be defined. If we have to define it, we might as well drop the word and put in something that doesn't need a definition.

The Chair: Let me try this on you. I'm not so sure about it, but how would it be if we wrestled with this language:

The Committee further recommends that the term “significant” be defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in a manner that would achieve the basic objectives of the Act.

Now, shoot it down in flames.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Joe just mentioned that it's still missing the element of a specific criterion.

The Chair: We're trying to be more precise with this recommendation, so as not to leave it wide open. One attempt to define which way we would like to see the definition of “significant” to be fleshed out would be to say that we recommend that it be defined in the act in a manner that would achieve the basic objectives of the act and that would be “linked to measurable environmental standards and targets.”

Let's hope that would fly. That would be what I've pencilled down here as a possible way of closing the loop, so to say. But if you want to improve it, then by all means feel free.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't see that as an improvement, Mr. Chair. I don't think it moves us forward at all. What we're trying to do with the definition is require measurable standards. That's the test: measurable standards and targets.

Speaking from a drafting standpoint, I think the struggle we're having here is that, given the norms in our system, both parliamentarian and under administrative law, you would expect that the legislature would in fact set some standards perhaps somewhat generally. Over a period of time, you would then have a further tightening of those definitions—that is, a clarification of them by way of interpretation from the various hearings that go on. What we're saying here, though, is that we need to include a definition of “significant” that has at least some reasonably clear and measurable standards and targets.

Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with the wording as it is, except that it should be “and be linked” after “Assessment Act”, at the top of page 23. It should say “and be linked to measurable environmental standards and targets”.

Á (1140)

The Chair: All right, I accept your evaluation of the changes I proposed, so we'll put them aside completely.

Tim is coming forward with his suggestion that it read “‘significant’ be defined in the Act in terms of measurable environmental standards and targets.” Is that all right?

Mr. Tim Williams: It should be “in terms of these measurable”, because I think we have a sentence prior to that suggesting—

The Chair: Fine. We seem to have come out of that conundrum. Thank you.

All right, let's see whether we can deal with the second challenge, that being effective enforcement.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is the appropriate section that we should be putting in. In terms of enforcement, I guess I'm looking at adding a recommendation here that would in fact give the hearing officers the authority to impose penalties. I think it's one of the major flaws in the existing legislation. At this stage, I don't think we as a committee would recommend what those penalties should be, but I think this is the area it should be in. I didn't make a note, but I think this would be the logical area that it would go into. It would be along the lines of non-compliance with either the permit or the determination by the hearing officers, the panel, or whoever.

I'm sorry. I'm struggling because obviously, at times, it might be the minister who is imposing penalties. I want to leave it fairly general in terms of how we would develop that system, because I haven't thought it through in terms of just what structure it would take. But the legislation should provide for penalties for non-compliance.

The Chair: When you have thought it through, will you let us have some language so that the committee can examine it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

The Chair: Can I invite you to look at the two huge paragraphs on page 27? They seem to be fairly straightforward. I was under the impression that if a federal departmental project recommendation cannot proceed.... Is this a necessary recommendation in light of what we have done with Bill C-9?

Ms. Kristen Douglas: The second part would follow from the first part. In other words, the committee would be recommending a system for the issuance of environmental assessment permits. That's something that doesn't currently exist. There would then be a penalty provided in the statute, to be applied to someone who proceeded without that permit. It's the permit that you're recommending that the second part refers to, not other permits that already exist.

The Chair: With the clarification given by Kristen Douglas, are the two paragraphs on page 27 acceptable? If that is the case, and if there is no comment on the preceding text, I would open up the discussion on section 4.3, the third challenge.

I'm not so sure we should have the question of the costs in that recommendation, because there may be situations in which costs would not be reduced. However, it would still be good planning to have an improvement in environmental protection in the construction of a bridge, for instance, or whatever. I would say it's a bit counterproductive to have this cost reduction as part of the recommendation. Therefore, I'm a bit nervous about it. What is the thinking of the committee?

Mr. Comartin.

Á (1145)

Mr. Joe Comartin: I had a similar reaction. It's admirable that we always consider the reduction of costs in the process. The concern that I have, though, is that with the way this is worded, it seems it would be on the same scale as enhancing project planning and improving environmental protection. The reduction of costs should not be prioritized with those two. Those two should clearly have a much higher priority.

If we're going to introduce a concept of cost at all, it should be on the basis that it does not impair project planning or environmental protection. As long as we've accomplished those two, then costs can be taken into account. But if the costs are going to be the determining factor on those other two criteria, then I would not be in support of that.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? No? If we are on the same wavelength then, we could delete the last three words and insert “and after planning”, and round it out just as proposed. Is that all right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

If there are no further comments, I would invite you to turn to the fourth challenge. The recommendation is on page 36.

I submit to you that this recommendation is one of enormous importance, as any national project would be, of course. This approach would be most desirable, even if it might be controversial at times. Nevertheless, we have enough precedents. We remember the Mackenzie Valley pipeline as an example, the bridge across to P.E.I., or you name it.

Mr. Roy Bailey: In other words, Mr. Chairman, we have had projects Canada-wide in the past. Who determines whether a project would be Canada-wide? I don't think that's a big difficulty.

The Chair: It would be a political assessment once it crosses one provincial boundary, for instance. We could already say that in the case of some of your rivers.

Mr. Roy Bailey: All of the Canada-wide have come across two or three jurisdictions. Two have for sure.

The Chair: Two have for sure, yes.

It's a good question. I don't know what the exact answer is, but certainly the moment that it—

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'm wondering if “national” would be a better word than “Canada-wide.”

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: There's also a problem with the wording in the French version. I too reject the vision alluded to in paragraphs 4.31 and 4.32, as well as in the recommendation. Supreme court decisions are the only supporting reference whereas quite frankly, I don't think we can simply use the various victories gained in the Supreme Court as an argument. One must also, in my view, refer to the subsidiary agreement on environmental assessment.

May I remind you that pursuant to the subsidiary agreement on environmental assessment, provincial governments are primarily responsible for ordering an environmental assessment in the case of project proposals involving land within provincial borders.

I can understand referring to various Supreme Court decisions, among others to the ruling involving Hydro-Québec. However, I also think mention should be made of the subsidiary agreement on environmental assessment pursuant to which the provincial government is responsible for ordering an environmental assessment in the case of a project involving land within provincial borders. I see no mention of this here.

Paragraph 4.32 makes a purely subjective statement. As I see, a clear-cut report must state more than just this:

Legal issues aside, the federal government is clearly seen by the public as the level of government that should protect the Canadian environment.

That's a cliché, an unsubstantiated pronouncement. If we want to advance an argument like this in paragraph 4.32, we need to back it up with the findings of a public opinion poll. As I see it, this pronouncement is purely subjective and I reject it.

Á (1150)

[English]

The Chair: Let me deal with your first point, Mr. Bigras, because what you said would be quite accurate if it were not for the fact that we have a Fisheries Act. With the Fisheries Act, whether a water body is within the boundaries of a province or crosses interprovincial boundaries, the federal government has full jurisdiction. We also have the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for that matter. So there is full federal jurisdiction even within the boundaries of one province, and we are very grateful for that. We cherish and love this particular piece of legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I agree, Mr. Chairman. That's not my point. I'm saying that when a project is set to be undertaken on provincial land, the province is primarily responsible for ordering an environmental assessment.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, Quebec law recognizes federal environmental assessments. In other words, when federal assessments are carried out pursuant to the Fisheries Act, they are recognized under Quebec law. In the case of the Toulnustouc dam, for instance, federal assessments were recognized, although an actual environmental assessment was done by the province, in fact, at the public's request.

[English]

The Chair: But it is not followed that way in other provinces, so you have a variety of procedures. In New Brunswick, you would have a procedure whereby it would be the opposite of the one adopted in Quebec. It's the same for Newfoundland, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, the Yukon, or you name it.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, where there is a transboundary implication with respect to a project proposed either through a responsible authority that is a federal department or a provincial authority, the minister has the duty, in the bill, to call for a panel review. I think that's the case, but I'm not sure of the wording. Is it felt that this is not significant enough in terms of the capacity for the minister to weigh the nature of the transboundary impact? Is that not satisfactory, as opposed to a much broader interpretation such that if CEAA is activated—

Á (1155)

The Chair: The referral in the act is not automatic.

Mr. Alan Tonks: It's not?

The Chair: No, so this is the key point. It's the automatic trigger. That's what this recommendation does.

Mr. Alan Tonks: So the only trigger that exists, then, is the minister's discretion with respect to—

The Chair: It's a discretion. That's correct.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see.

The Chair: And that was discussed ad nauseam, of course, because some see it as a political discretion that should not exist.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I'd pose a problem, though. How could the minister activate a panel review if there isn't an application, if there hasn't been a—

The Chair: There is no need for an application at all. What is sufficient is the airing of a possible project, without it even being applied, as in the case of reversing the flow of a river.

Mr. Herron has another point.

Mr. John Herron: I was just going to try to pick up on what Mr. Bigras was speaking about.

In regard to the scope of the project, if the system worked, that would eliminate the need to have subjective or political interpretations of the act itself. If the project is that substantive, then it should have a panel review or a joint panel review, regardless of whether it's of national importance or not. It's the environment that matters, not the political interpretation of whether it's Canada-wide or not. What this kind of statement does is create an unnecessary barrier for fodder for federal–provincial acrimony on its own, when it should be concerned with the scope of the project itself.

When you look at the term “Canada-wide importance”, usually a project that has Canada-wide importance is more often than not a political project, whether it's the constitutional obligation under the fixed link, which you referred to, or the pipeline itself. You usually have a political project—sometimes, not that the fixed link was, but it was a good project—subject to a political interpretation of what Canada-wide is, so it's actually a subjective interpretation of something that already is subjective.

I think this whole section fosters potential acrimony between federal and provincial governments when we should be focusing on the environment, on the scope of the project itself. So I think I'm in line with where Mr. Bigras is. I don't think the section adds anything.

The Chair: So how would you modify the language?

Mr. John Herron: I think we should use the act. We should enforce the act. If the scope of the project is broad enough that it should be subject to panel reviews or joint panel reviews, we should encourage that. Or I would rewrite the whole section itself to be able to take the approach that federal–provincial situations are automatic. They would always be joint projects and we would try to foster cooperation, as opposed to saying we're doing a panel review every time we, the federal government, determine something is a national project.

The whole spirit of the section should be focusing on cooperation with the provinces, as opposed to the federal government determining when it is a national project. The scope of the project will speak for itself.

The Chair: You have been asked to come forward with some language, and I'm not sure I heard you suggesting some language.

Mr. John Herron: I didn't. I'm okay with not even having the section at all. I think Mr. Bigras might be close to that ilk as well.

True or false, my friend?

Â (1200)

The Chair: What would be the advantage of not having this section?

Mr. John Herron: You're going down the track of saying that when it's Canada-wide, we really mean large projects need to have a panel review, versus saying that a large project that's not Canada-wide doesn't need to have a panel review. You're almost setting up or developing a two-tier system by actually even having the section in place.

The Chair: We have a two-tier system already.

Mr. John Herron: But it should be the scope of the project on environmental criteria that precipitates whether a panel review is used or not, not political interpretations.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, followed by Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This is for my own personal information on some of these projects that we've had that are Canada-wide, such as the Columbia River, for instance, which is part of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and another one that I have in my constituency that took place long before the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I'm wondering if this act would be applicable at all if, say, too much water was being taken and that was disrupting the ecosystem and so on. Would this act then be triggered, and would we not work in partnership with someone south of the border at the same time?

The Chair: It would.

Let me repeat that the essence of this recommendation is the automatic trigger. It's the word “automatic” that animates this whole idea. Otherwise, of course, the minister can take initiatives, period. It's the automatic aspect that this recommendation intends to put forward.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: It's important to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the act authorizes the minister to conduct panel reviews. As I understand it, that authority is not exercised. In 99% of cases, projects are screened, but not put to a panel review.

Last year in Quebec, 12 public hearings were held to discuss proposed projects. If we add a new element to the process, ostensibly for the sake of protecting the national interest, we are merely stifling the will of the provinces to put in place an environmental assessment process.

In Quebec, the minister already has that authority. At the federal level, the problem is more political in that the minister does not exercise the authority he has. That's an entirely different matter. This recommendation can only be divisive. In my opinion, it goes against agreements signed between the provincial and federal governments with a view to implementing an environmental assessment process. Partnership and cooperation should be the goal, not arranging so that the federal government polices the situation.

That's how we will improve the environment. Cooperation and partnership should be our stated objective. That approach has already proven successful in Quebec. I'm firmly convinced that the provinces want to act in good faith and far from introducing a new element, we need a show of political will to enforce the panel review provision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in recent years, only one panel review has been conducted. Lack of political will is the problem, not the constitution.

The Chair: Yes, but

[English]

from time to time, there are issues in which the political will is conflicting. I will give you an example.

In Ontario, we have at least one issue for which some of us would love to have an environmental impact assessment, and that is the insistence of the provincial government to go with gas-fired power stations that have been objected to by two neighbouring states to the south. It's a policy direction that, in the view of some of us, is one that ought to be examined from the point of view of an environmental assessment. That is in Ontario; therefore, the opportunity of an automatic trigger is very appealing.

I understand your arguments to the contrary, but keep in mind that it's not just Canada–Quebec, it can be Canada–Ontario, it can be Canada–B.C., or it can be Canada and another province. So we are still wrestling with this, and maybe we should put it on the back burner to let it cool off for another day.

Mr. Comartin has a thought.

Â (1205)

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm having real problems with the recommendation as well, based on the Canada-wide importance as opposed to it being environmentally focused. I'm just wondering about a possible alternative. There's a reference here to a recommendation put forth by Lucien Catrysse, in regard to the comprehensive study list. I have to plead ignorance, because I forget how that list is compiled.

The Chair: Where is that?

Mr. Joe Comartin: The reference is on page 35, in the insert at paragraph 4.36.

I'm just wondering if our researchers could help. Do we have any existing system that somehow could be modified or enhanced in order to make it more acceptable that we go that route rather than with the recommendation we have now? That's my question.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: The comprehensive study list is a regulation under the statute.

I don't know if this is helpful at all, but I'll just wade in here with one observation. The idea of a test, that the projects be measured to see if they're of Canada-wide importance, comes from Stephen Hazell, the consultant the committee retained.

There are maybe two aspects to this report. One is the possibly province-offending “Canada-wide importance” test. The other is the idea that projects that might be of sufficient significance to be considered really important might merit inclusion on a panel review list like the comprehensive study list. It's possible this section of the report could be altered to make a recommendation like the one you're suggesting, one that has to do with the environmental impact of the project as opposed to the Canada-wide significance.

The Chair: Why don't we follow that suggestion. We will ask the researchers—

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, the question I really had was partially answered, but I don't know how you get on the comprehensive study list now. Is there a test for it now? As a project, how are you put on the comprehensive study list?

Ms. Kristen Douglas: It was developed the way regulations are developed. The department must be open to the inclusion of other types of projects, but I don't know what the actual route to take would be if you had a type of project that you wanted to include. This evidence was about projects that witnesses thought were bigger than that and needed to be handled in a panel-review format.

The Chair: Keep in mind what we heard also from that witness from Manitoba. It is summarized in paragraph 4.34, on page 34. Paragraph 4.34 makes a reference to the logging of 11 million hectares of boreal forest in Manitoba. That received only a screening, and that was all.

Evidently, a definition of “Canada-wide importance”, or even “national importance”, would not meet the test here, so it is not adequate. But as Mr. Herron, Mr. Comartin, and now Kristen have indicated, maybe we should reword it and shift the emphasis to “environmentally focused”.

Can we put this aside for a rewording at our next meeting, taking into account the interventions that were made by the witnesses on the present wording, yet in a manner that would meet the requirements for an assessment in future cases when boreal forest in one province, for instance, would be...? Is that agreeable to you? We'll revisit this, because I don't think we should drop it that easily. We should be very careful here.

If that is acceptable to the committee, I would invite the committee to look now at the next challenge, section 4.5, which has a fairly lengthy recommendation, although it seems to be not a difficult one.

First, however, we will take a five-minute break.

Â (1211)

Â (1222)

The Chair: Under section 4.5, we come to the cumulative effects that we had discussed. As you have noticed, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is quoted, as are other witnesses. The recommendation is fairly long. It begins at the bottom of page 39. The emphasis or the focus is on cumulative effects, in order to make them comply.

Are there any comments on the text of the recommendation?

Monsieur Bigras, followed by Mr. Comartin.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Regarding paragraph 4.44, what exactly is meant by “federal authority to conduct regional EAs in areas experiencing multiple projects...”? That is the point we're discussing, correct? Does this mean the federal government could conduct regional EAs in the provinces? As I understand, this would give the federal government new powers not provided for in the act. Correct? I'm putting this question to the research staff. The federal government is being newly authorized to conduct regional EAs. How does this authority tie in with provincial environmental assessments?

Â (1225)

[English]

The Chair: It states a fact of life in paragraph 4.44. The federal government rarely has jurisdiction over planning a program.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm looking at paragraph 4.44.

[English]

The Chair: There is nothing untoward and nothing new. Land use planning is typically a provincial responsibility. You should be glad about this text.

Mr. Roy Bailey: In other words, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: The fact that the Tories made a mess of land use planning in Ontario, for instance, is a well-known fact, isn't it, Mr. Reed? Mr. Tonks can perhaps write a book on that.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Sir, what I read in this is as I suspected. We talk about regional environmental assessments. The federal assessment would override and work with the provincial assessments, with provincial environment acts, and so on. How large a project would it be? This goes on all the time, but it's not measured necessarily by the size of the assessment. It's measured more by the pertinence at the particular time, isn't that correct?

The Chair: Take that expressway in Hamilton, for instance. It's a very local event in terms of its outcome, but we discussed it here, too. The impact is probably the criterion, rather than the size.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: If that's the case, why should the provinces conduct environmental assessments if the federal government is doing regional EAs? For instance, would this mean that in Quebec, the BAPE would be conducting environmental assessments at the same time as the federal government would be conducting regional EAs? I don't understand. Maybe I'm the one who...

[English]

The Chair: The main point is that the constitutional division of powers makes the issue complex. That's what it says, and not more. We all know that. The provinces have jurisdiction over land planning. That's a fact of life.

Tim, go ahead.

Mr. Tim Williams: I'm not entirely sure, but I think probably the word that is creating some problems, in the English version anyway, is “conduct”. In English, it reads, “Another is to build federal authority to conduct regional EAs in areas experiencing multiple projects”. Just to try to get around the problem, “conduct” could be changed to something like “participate in”, or something like that. The term “conduct” sounds a little bit more forceful than perhaps the committee would like.

The Chair: Now I understand, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the bill also gives the agency the authority, through the regional EAs, to look at best practices and criteria and to act as a clearing house with respect to cumulative impacts. I'm wondering if the word...as opposed to “conduct”, the proactivity, if you will, is more in keeping with the wording in the act, as we were pointing out, as opposed to there being a wholly new or different nature to the process of looking at cumulative impacts.

I would support dropping the word “conduct”. I think that's a good suggestion. I also think some authorities are built in that will in fact look at cumulative impacts through the regional EAs.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Would you support “to participate in”?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes, I think that's better.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I've struggled with this, because something stuck in my mind. When the mining association was here, they were talking about the difficulties they had in dealing with assessments in the territories and with the unfair onus and burden the assessments place on people, on proponents, depending on when they came in. They may have to undertake a massive assessment and the costs that go with it all the time, but somebody else coming in at a different period of time might not be faced with anywhere near the same expenses or time commitments.

It seems to me that it behooves this committee to try to figure out a way in which we can do those regional assessments. I accept the concerns expressed by Monsieur Bigras and the ones that we heard from the first nations, particularly in the north, where they didn't look forward to having to be subject to the federal act. In this area, I have two concerns. One is the territories, because of their undeveloped nature and the pressures they're faced with now and will be faced with over the next decade or two.

I'm making all these statements, Mr. Chair, because I don't have a solution. I think we have to recognize that it's a serious problem though. I don't think we can walk away from this. Maybe a recommendation for study is the only way of dealing with it. The second part of the recommendation may be the more important part. We really do have to work it out at this level, and it's going to have to be done in cooperation with the provinces, the territories, and the first nations.

In summary, I would say I'm probably satisfied with the recommendations, but in that context that I just expressed.

The Chair: Thank you.

So the Minister of the Environment is asked to ensure that cumulative effects assessment requirements under CEAA become priorities or are considered as priorities for the agency.

We then go into sub-recommendations, namely that the agency is to examine and report on the use of the two that are listed. That seems reasonable to me. If there are no comments and no questions, I think we can adopt this as a reasonable approach.

If silence means approval, I invite you to look at section 4.6.

Mr. Bailey.

Â (1235)

Mr. Roy Bailey: Just as an explanation, on page 44, we talk about the committee's further recommendations. Here we have “make recommendations to the Government of Canada for incorporating the ‘conservation first’ principle into CEAA and other federal laws.” Do we see, therefore, that it's the government that would look at the principle that we have and that it would look at other laws so that they are in harmony with the assessment act?

The Chair: Hopefully so.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Is that a mammoth project?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No.

Mr. Roy Bailey: It seems like a lot to me.

The Chair: I don't think it would be many laws, quite frankly. I don't think it would be a mammoth project. However, what we are asking the Minister of the Environment to do would require a gigantic political will to achieve. I don't know whether it will be achieved. It would be nice and it is a good thought, but incorporation of the “conservation first” principle in federal laws would be quite a breakthrough.

Mr. Roy Bailey: It's not traditional.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, there's a disturbing observation here, and it demonstrates the difficulty that this act seems to present now, unless it can be explained. In paragraph 4.46, on page 40, it says:

EAs under CEAA focus on identifying the adverse environmental effects of proposed projects, determining whether or not these are significant, and identify measures that would mitigate any adverse effects. Typically, EAs are not linked to achieving Canada's international and other obligations, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting biodiversity, protecting the ecological integrity of National Parks....

That concern was brought forward by the Canadian Hydropower Association, which said that if an environmental assessment of a power project is being done, then for pity's sake, all of the impacts should be looked at, the positives as well as the negatives.

I'm really concerned with that. It's a straightforward enough commentary, but....

Mr. Roy Bailey: It's more than just the environment. Power is asking for everything.

Mr. Julian Reed: What I'm suggesting is that for a good many of these projects, especially into the future, there will be negative impacts, but there may be a positive purpose coming out at the other end. Unless that positive result is identified, then the whole thing is going to be couched in totally negative terms.

The Chair: What the law tends to do is measure the environmental impacts. If there are positive impacts of a financial nature or of an economic nature that are in conflict, of course—they're on what you call the positive side—they will be advanced and examined and proposed and defended, articulated in cabinet by a finance minister or someone who looks at that side of the issue. But this particular law, this legislation, looks at the environmental side.

Â (1240)

Mr. Julian Reed: I wasn't really referring to economic impacts so much as to positive environmental impacts. For instance, what's the greenhouse gas offset of a megawatt of hydro power? It's 4,000 tonnes a year, that's what it is. But that would not show up in an environmental assessment.

The Chair: Why not?

Mr. Julian Reed: Well, it has never happened before.

The Chair: That doesn't mean it couldn't be factored in.

Mr. Julian Reed: This is why I'm concerned. It says “adverse environmental impacts”. It observes that there may not be room to look at the positives.

The Chair: Let's hear from Kristen Douglas.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: Just to point something out, I think Mr. Reed is reinforcing why this section is in the report. If you check paragraph 4.53, you'll see that Pierre Fortin, of the Canadian Hydropower Association, is quoted. They are talking about the current EA process looking at each project individually for its significant adverse environmental effects, and are saying that misses the opportunity to take that broader look. That's why the section is here. It's to articulate a different approach.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of attending the Canadian Wetlands Conservation conference this morning. There was a reference to the Lac Leamy proposal that was guided through the wetlands strategy, and that was in fact turned down. That illustrates that the concern raised here with respect to Canada's national standards is guided and linked through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In terms of the international connection, certainly if you take the Kyoto commitments as an example, the whole nature of entering into the protocol—in fact, the Cartegena Protocol—appears to reach out and attempt to multilaterally link our assessment objectives to international protocol.

I have no problem with stating this, but I'd like to think it's reiterating the commitment as opposed to creating a new commitment. I think that's what we're doing.

I wonder a little bit about the wording here when you say, “national and international environmental legal and policy commitments, objectives and standards are incorporated into the environment assessment”, as opposed to being guided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I just wondered if that was why I was having a little bit of a problem with the wording.

I'm sure all the members of the committee share the commitment that our own principles and processes in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are reflected in our adherence to international protocols and agreements. I have no argument with that at all. I just wondered whether or not it was the wording that was in fact giving us a little bit of a hang-up.

The Chair: You're quite right. The wording is slightly stronger than the present legislation provides for, because it says “incorporate” rather than “reflect” or “guide”. It is a kind of advice that the committee sends to the government for application.

Of course, the second sentence, containing “the ‘conservation first’ principle”, is of paramount significance, but it is a very difficult one to implement, no doubt. But it wouldn't harm to keep it as a suggestion, because at least it provides a benchmark. It is not necessarily one that needs to be achieved, but it is a desirable one that needs to be given to governments for their consideration in decades ahead. We may come one day to a “conservation first” principle, but it may be in 2020 or 2040 or whenever. Usually, it comes from population pressures.

Can I invite you to move to section 4.7, on panel reviews and public participation? Here the quotations are plentiful, and are in good part from aboriginal sources. The recommendation on page 49 is then pretty lengthy. I don't know what it means to “place a high priority”, but it is a kind of language that is hard to improve upon.

Â (1245)

Mr. John Herron: Maybe it means to use them once in a while, to acknowledge that they exist.

The Chair: I want it to be more straightforward, simpler, and more effective, so that instead of saying that the minister should “place a high priority”, the third line would read that the minister will “increase the level of public participation in CEAA, and that the Minister adopt panel reviews as a key tool”. Is that too direct?

Mr. Bailey says it's better.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes, it is.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Generally speaking, I agree that greater public participation in the panel review process should be encouraged in so far as discussing the principles behind the recommendations. I also agree that steps should be taken to increase the level of public participation. I have no problem with that, provided this new approach doesn't lead to duplication and overlap.

Let me remind you of the question clearly stated, and with good reason, in paragraph 4.56: “...why was only one project referred to a panel review from a screening” since the coming into force of the CEAA? It's a good question.

Again, consider the example of Quebec. Since 1990, 19 projects have been referred to a panel review, whereas since the coming into force of the CEAA, only one project in all of Canada has been referred to a panel review.

If a review at the provincial level has already taken place, then I don't think a second parallel review is warranted. Of course, we can always claim that this further protects the environment, but it goes against the principle of sustainable development. In point of fact, some legitimate, sound projects may be good for the environment, such as hydroelectric projects that would lower greenhouse gas emission levels, but they could be delayed because of the panel review process, even though a provincial review might already have been done.

Therefore, we need to look at ways of minimizing duplication to better apply the concept of sustainable development. That's my opinion, but perhaps others do not share it.

The Chair: Well said.

Â (1250)

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I do my best.

[English]

The Chair: What Monsieur Bigras is telling us is that our federal record is not one we can be very proud of. That's very true, so we have more reason to write this report.

Is the committee in general agreement that we ask the minister to “increase the level”, instead of “place a high priority on”? If so, it would say, “increase the level of public participation in CEAA”, and that “the Minister adopt panel reviews” instead of “focus on”.

Mr. Julian Reed: That's stronger, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Herron: It could even be stronger, to the point that we recognize that—and this is not actually wording, but the spirit that I'm looking toward—the minister and the government haven't utilized the panel review component of their tool kit to the degree that they could have, and that there has been some lost opportunity here.

The Chair: So what is the language that you are suggesting?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, while you're gathering your thoughts, I recall that the agency did indicate in an earlier study draft, during the comprehensive study, that in their opinion, it would lead to more review panels. By virtue of the act or the bill as it will be presented, I think it will result in more review panels. Given the fact that we have now included crown corporations, I would take it that we are going to have more instances of review panels. The question is whether that fact in itself, with the electronic capacity for people to get information in addition to the usual paper inventory, will get more public participation. I think it will, but I don't think there's any problem with the way you've strengthened the wording here.

The Chair: If that is the direction in which the cat is going to jump, we might as well say it. Hopefully it will materialize.

Mr. Herron, briefly.

Mr. John Herron: Could we utilize this language? I think it may address where we're headed. It says:

The Committee recommends that the Minister of the Environment and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency place a high priority on increasing the level of public participation in CEAA—

The Chair: We're changing it to read, “increase the level”.

Mr. John Herron: I'm reading it as it is right now. After “CEAA”, after the comma, it would say, “and in particular, that the Minister recognize that increased usage of panel reviews is a key tool to increase such participation.”

The Chair: You're saying with twice as many words what we are attempting to say here with half that amount of words. We are recommending that the minister adopt panel reviews as a key tool to increase such participation. I think we're moving in the same direction, only with a greater economy of words.

Could I invite you to look at the next section now? I think we've flogged this sufficiently. Section 4.8 is headed “Incorporation of Aboriginal Perspectives”. There is a fairly elaborate and broad recommendation on page 54, namely that the agency

work with its aboriginal advisory committee to carry out a systematic review of legal developments relating to aboriginal and treaty rights as they apply to environmental assessment. In addition it should study the interaction between CEAA and environmental assessment regimes of aboriginal and comprehensive claims institutions, with a view to developing more effective environmental assessment.

Do you sense that this is an adequate approach? Is this what needs to be said? It's a very broad and vague recommendation.

Â (1255)

Mr. Alan Tonks: I think it reflects the amendments that we've made.

The Chair: It's more of a very political item than....

Mr. Julian Reed: It's probably appropriate, Mr. Chairman, because the whole aboriginal relationship is going through a change as we speak right now, with the new governance bill and that sort of thing.

The Chair: Do I take it, then, that you more or less consider this to be acceptable wording?

Mr. Bigras is not happy.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Are you on page 61?

The Chair: No, on page 54.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm sorry, I was mistaken. Things are moving along so quickly.

The Chair: That's in the English version. In the French version, you're looking at page...

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I disagree completely with the part that comes after paragraph 4.70.

I for one would add the following recommendation:

The committee recommends that the EA regime set out in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement be the one applied in the Cree territory of northern Quebec.

That's my recommendation. I humbly submit it, although I realize others may not be of like mind.

The Chair: As the saying goes, close but no cigar.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yet, Mr. Chairman, that's what Mr. Saganash told the committee. I'm trying to go by what the witnesses said to us. That's my sole objective.

[English]

The Chair: We take note of Mr. Bigras' intervention, out of correctness.

Could we move to section 4.9 and the recommendation in paragraph 4.78?

I must admit that I had some participation in this draft of this particular one, because it seems to me that without it, it would just be relegated to a corner to collect dust. With this type of recommendation, maybe the Privy Council will pay attention to this type of discipline and to the necessary necessity of a legal framework. There's no guarantee, but it is better to have something rather than having a vacuum. However, if you feel it should be improved or modified, feel free.

We have a suggestion to insert a timeframe in the second line, so that the recommendation would read, “that the Prime Minister direct the Privy Council Office to develop legislation before the seven-year review”.

You will remember Mr. Reed's amendment, and you will remember the fact that it was carried. Hopefully it will be adopted at report stage as well, and therefore the recommendation would have a target that would make it in harmony or such that it would converge with Mr. Reed's amendment. So we could insert “before the seven-year review” after the word “legislation”.

All of this means we have to come back again to see the changes that have been made, and that we have to also revisit the recommendation that we left in abeyance today. I believe that was the fourth one. We can do that at the next meeting, and hopefully we can conclude at the next meeting if all are in agreement.

I thank you for your patience, cooperation, and input.

Merci. À la prochaine.