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

Thursday, October 9, 2003

1530

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport)

1535

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

1550

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Ronald Sully (Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Divestiture Group, Department of Transport)

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Bob Mills

1555

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1600

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1605

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

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

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

1610

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

1615

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Julian Reed

1620

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Julian Reed

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Julian Reed

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

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

Hon. David Collenette

1625

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Hon. David Collenette

1630

Mr. Paul Szabo

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Paul Szabo

Hon. David Collenette

1635

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

Mrs. Catherine Higgens (Director, Environmental Initiatives Division, Department of Transport)

The Chair

1640

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

1645

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. David Collenette

1650

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

1655

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

1700

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Hon. David Collenette

Mr. Julian Reed

Hon. David Collenette

1705

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Ronald Sully

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

1710

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

1715

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Sully

The Chair

Hon. David Collenette

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1720

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

1725

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

1730

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1735

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1740

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 031

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will now begin our proceedings on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Ah yes, my favourite topic.

The Chair: Mine as well. You're not alone.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I hope not.

The Chair: At this time, I'd like to welcome the Minister of Transport to the committee.

[English]

Mr. Collenette, we are delighted to have you and your officials.

The transport sector is a major component in the struggle to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases. It's not going to be easy, but it's going to be exciting. We have been looking forward very much to having this meeting with you, and we want to thank you for having accepted the invitation so promptly.

The floor is yours.

After your presentation, of course, there will be one or two rounds of questions, as is customary.

[Translation]

Welcome, Minister.

[English]

Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to be here to talk with members of the committee respecting Canada's commitments to Kyoto and the transportation component.

I have here my Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs and Divestiture, Ronald Sully, and Catherine Higgens, Director of the Environmental Initiatives Division.

Some of this is self-evident to this august committee, which is an expert, but I will put down certain things on the record. We all know that transportation accounts for about one-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the fastest-growing sources. We all know that the challenges facing us are significant, but there are opportunities. As transportation is a part of the climate change problem, transportation, I believe, can become part of the solution.

The solution really involves addressing four areas or themes: first, encouraging the use of vehicles that produce fewer emissions; second, encouraging the use of fuels that produce fewer emissions; third, more efficient transport of goods; and fourth, increased use of alternative modes of transportation for passenger travel.

Measures that have been identified to date to meet Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol include transportation measures that will lead to the reduction of greenhouse gases by some 21 megatonnes. Let me take you through some of the actions that we will need to take to deal with these megatonnes.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

First, I would like to begin with the vehicles component, the first theme. The objective of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Initiative is to introduce more fuel-efficient vehicles into the Canadian market. The Minister of Natural Resources is leading negotiations with automotive manufacturers to achieve a twenty-five per cent improvement in new vehicle fleet fuel efficiency by 2010.

Under this initiative, Transport Canada delivers the $6.4 million Advanced Technology Vehicle Program or ATVP. The program's objectives are twofold. First, vehicles with advanced technologies are assessed to determine their impact on safety, energy efficiency, and the environment and whether vehicles, either those currently available or about to be available in other markets, can meet Canadian standards.

The information gathered from this program will determine if and how the vehicles and technologies can be used in Canada and what barriers they may encounter, regulatory or otherwise.

[English]

Second, the ATVP aims to raise public awareness of fuel efficiency and climate change by displaying advanced technology vehicles at a number of venues. At the end of March of this year, the ATVP fleet was comprised of 87 vehicles, which have been exposed through public showings to as many as 3.9 million Canadians.

The second theme involves fuels. The Minister of Natural Resources has spoken to you about efforts to support industry to increase the supply of renewable and alternative fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. In fact, Mr. Dhaliwal, and Mr. Rock, I believe, made an announcement of increased government funding to this end today.

This takes me to the third theme, the movement of goods. We have some interesting initiatives that involve the commercial transportation sector. Although they only represent about one-third of transportation greenhouse gas emissions, freight-related emissions are growing far faster than those associated with passenger transportation. This of course is due to the continuing growth of the Canadian economy and the increasing integration of the North American market. We feel this most acutely in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, particularly those of us who represent constituencies in southern Ontario. We clearly need to look at how to improve the overall efficiency of freight movement.

We all know there have been improvements in all modes over the past 10 years, but I'm convinced that technology and improved business practices offer more opportunities to reduce emissions—opportunities that also make economic sense.

I'm sure you know that the government introduced the freight efficiency and technology initiative under the Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change. Transport Canada's role in this program involves three areas. First, we're seeking to negotiate voluntary performance agreements with major associations representing rail, marine, and air. These agreements will include a greenhouse gas emission reduction target and will outline concrete initiatives for these emissions for each of the modes.

Second, Transport Canada is developing and promoting education and awareness tools for the rail, marine, and air modes. This package involves technical workshops, training programs, publications on preventative maintenance, fuel management practices, and better informed modal choice.

Finally, our department is administering the freight sustainability demonstration program as part of this initiative. Through this program, up to $250,000 can be allocated to projects that demonstrate technologies or best practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from any freight mode. So far, we've spent the rather modest sum of $530,000 on three rail projects and three trucking projects.

[Translation]

On August 12, the Prime Minister announced a $1 billion investment towards implementation of the Climate Change Plan for Canada. As part of this package, Transport Canada will partner with Natural Resources Canada on a new $32.2 million Commercial Transportation Energy Efficiency Initiative that will complement our current efforts. This program will provide financial support to industry for the purchase and installation of energy-efficient equipment in all modes. The program will also introduce a new focus on shippers and help increase their understanding of the energy-efficient transportation choices available to them.

Transport Canada proposes to pursue further opportunities to promote, in some cases through public-private partnerships, increased use of inter-modal freight movement. This can be done through greater use of intelligent transportation systems, harmonization of national and international standards and infrastructure investments.

I would also like to point to initiatives that I have announced previously with respect to Intelligent Transportation Systems, or ITS. The Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program provides $30 million for shared funding of projects that will stimulate the development and deployment of ITS to maximize the use and efficiency of existing infrastructure and to ensure that future transportation needs are met more responsibly. As recently as July, I announced a call for proposals for research and development projects consistent with our ITS Research and Development Plan for Canada,Innovation through Partnership.

I would now like to turn your attention to the fourth theme of the solution, namely passenger transportation. Seventy per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation originate from road transportation. Two-thirds of these emissions come from urban areas. Most emissions in urban areas are related to personal travel, so it is critically important to support, where possible, the increased availability of public transit, influence individuals' choices about their use of transportation services, and design cities that are sustainable.

As you know, the federal government announced a $2.05 billion municipal infrastructure program in Budget 2000 called the Infrastructure Canada Program. Funding for the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund was announced as part of Budget 2001 to provide $2 billion for large-scale strategic infrastructure projects. Last year's Speech from the Throne confirmed this long-term commitment and the most recent budget provided another $3 billion in infrastructure support, including $1 billion for municipal infrastructure. Public transit projects will continue to be eligible under future infrastructure funding.

¹ (1540)

[English]

Transport Canada is working very closely with Infrastructure Canada in all of this to identify worthwhile transportation investments for funding under the CSIF in implementing transportation infrastructure projects.

Another responsibility for urban transit rests with provincial and territorial municipal governments. The federal government is committed to working closely with these governments to help ensure that communities have the best transportation systems possible.

The federal government and the Quebec government have each contributed to feasibility studies of the Montreal light rail transit system, utilizing a disused structure called the ice bridge, estacade, in Montreal. These studies will reach completion next year.

In April 2002 we committed $76 million from the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program to fund the Toronto Transit Commission's base capital program, namely subway and streetcar improvements, and we're currently under discussions on a further contribution to the Toronto Transit Commission, subject to the agreement of the new provincial government in Ontario and the new City of Toronto council, which will be elected next month.

Last October we announced 11 projects totalling $30.3 million in Alberta. One of the projects will extend Edmonton's light rail transit, while others include resurfacing and rehabilitation of roads in smaller communities.

In March 2003 we announced the federal government's intent to invest $435 million for GO Transit and the Quick Start phase of the York region rapid transit program, all to benefit commuters in the greater Toronto area.

In August of this year, together with my colleague, Allan Rock, we announced $25 million toward the Niagara Falls people mover project to reduce congestion and improve tourism.

On May 23 of this year I announced a call for business cases for an air-rail link between Pearson Airport, Canada's largest, and Union Station, which is Canada's busiest. In Toronto, in the next few weeks, I'll be announcing the winner of that particular proposal call.

The government recently offered $300 million to assist Vancouver in funding the Richmond to Vancouver airport rapid transit project, and those negotiations are currently under way.

I think all of these projects are worthwhile, but this is only a drop in the bucket. As a government, I think we have to be committed to do much more in partnership with the provinces and municipalities as the years go ahead to deal with the real municipal infrastructure deficit in transportation, which of course has an impact--I think the biggest chunk of impact--on greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, that is, urban congestion.

One of the things I've been particularly keen on is protecting urban rail corridors for public transit. We have amendments in the Canada Transportation Act now being studied in committee, Bill C-26, that will facilitate the transfer of surplus rail corridors to urban transit authorities so that they may be used for transit purposes.

Two years ago I announced a $40 million program called the urban transportation showcase program, a key component of the Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change. This is a national program to demonstrate innovative, integrated, and sustainable transportation practices in our cities. Showcase projects are eligible to receive up to $10 million from program funds, and I expect to make an announcement shortly on which projects have been successful under the program.

Climate change is a real problem to which we and others must fashion real solutions based upon a firm grasp of the constant benefits of action. The biggest part of the challenge, of course, lies ahead as we strive to reduce emissions and will ultimately transform the Canadian economy.

I might say, before I conclude, Mr. Chairman--this is not in my speech--that I believe part of the problem we have in reaching our Kyoto targets, especially as they interface the transportation system, is that we are, in effect, developing programs and responses to a problem that exists. In other words, we're trying to give medicine to the cold that has been caught instead of applying preventative measures. You know the old adage of your mothers and grandmothers: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure--or the other way around. I'm not very good on these adages, but you know what I mean.

In other words, what are we doing to really change our behaviour? We have to change our behaviour. I can tell you that any time I have popped off and said, well, we shouldn't be close-minded, we should even look at whether or not road pricing is relevant in Canada...I only said we should look at it, but, my God, there's World War III in the press: “You can't do this. We have a God-given right to drive a gas-guzzling car or SUV downtown to Toronto or Edmonton.” You know, we don't. We cannot keep up the present level of behaviour that we have as a society, especially in the urban areas, and expect to meet our targets.

¹ (1545)

We have to change our attitudes, we have to change our values, we have to change our lifestyle, and we have to change the way we organize society, particularly land use planning that comes under the provinces. Mr. Reed and I had a brief chat about that earlier and perhaps we can talk about it later. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, you can pour in all the money you want dealing with the problem at the back end, but you really have to deal with it at the front end to stop the problem from getting worse than it is now.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Collenette. That was very helpful indeed.

Mr. Mills is first for five minutes.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I welcome the minister.

Let me quote from the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development's report of this week, in which she said that your department has no idea if any of your greenhouse gas emission reduction targets will be met. In August your department was given $154 million for various initiatives. Basically, she says you can't set those targets, you can't meet your targets, and you couldn't even tell if your targets were met. Her quote is:

The government doesn't have the information it needs to determine whether its programs are on the right track to contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Will we get the desired results for our money? The government is currently not able to answer this question.

I wonder if you could respond to that.

¹ (1550)

Hon. David Collenette: I will not respond in detail, Mr. Chairman, but I will respond generically. I think we have a bit of an issue in society and in Parliament with the work of the Auditor General in general.

As far as I'm concerned, I was first elected--not as long ago as the chair--in 1974, but over the years the Auditor General was supposedly to look at whether or not government money was spent properly, whether the right cost controls were in place, not to second-guess policies and to second-guess the administration of the department in achieving goals. That is highly subjective in nature. In fact, I can tell you the previous Auditor General criticized the department with respect to some targets that were allegedly not being achieved. I believe it was to do with transportation and investments in New Brunswick. We categorically demonstrated to the Auditor General that the reasoning was wrong. Far be it from me to criticize the Auditor General, but I think, quite frankly, at certain times the Auditor General demands criticism.

On this particular issue, I will get a written answer to you. I'm glad you raised this question because it allows me to get something off my chest, which is that I would hope that all of us as parliamentarians would exhort the Auditor General, who is an officer of Parliament, to stick to her knitting and deal with the proper cost control measures that the Auditor General is supposed to oversee and for which she does a very good job.

Far be it from me to criticize the AG's job. All I know, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Mills, is that I was elected as a politician and I'm accountable to the electorate, as are you. The Auditor General is not. The Auditor General is accountable to Parliament, and I would hope that the Auditor General would look at the initiatives of the departments and look at expenditures and oversee the accounting and not second-guess political or administrative initiatives in discharging targets.

I think there's a high degree of subjectivity that can be challenged, and I say that with the greatest of respect.

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess she's seeing that $154 million was assigned to you in August and she's saying she doesn't see anything you've demonstrated whereby you can measure that as to outcome. I think that is within her realm of comment. If she can't find your test mechanism, your evaluation, your accountability, then I think she has every right to question. How do we know that money will be spent accurately?

Hon. David Collenette: Well, then, Mr. Sully will give you the details in rebuttal.

Mr. Ronald Sully (Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Divestiture Group, Department of Transport): I would just add, sir, that $154 million was not allocated to the department. There may have been that kind of allocation for transportation in general, but you have to understand that this allocation is made across a number of departments. The amount that was announced for our department in the summer was a very, very small amount.

The program approval is not yet received from Treasury Board, so it would be impossible to be able to say, at this point, in advance of program approval and in advance of the establishment of the results accountability framework that we don't have the measures in place.

That's one comment. The other comment is that I know the Commissioner of the Environment has made some comments vis-à-vis a couple of our smaller programs. One is the MOST program--moving on sustainable transportation--and the other one is on our ITS program.

The department has responded, and in our response we have said, for example, that with respect to ITS we are developing proper measures so that we can measure the greenhouse gas impact. With respect to the MOST program, although we don't have the measures at the program level, we do have them at the project level. So those measures are in place.

Hon. David Collenette: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this was a very polite answer. It backs up my contention, and that is that many of the comments that are made in these reports are highly subjective and are really not reflective of the facts. We're not trying to hide anything here, but here is a case, as he said earlier, where the program approval hasn't even been given by Treasury Board, yet we're being criticized for not explaining where the money is going, and this becomes headlines. This, I believe, is unacceptable.

Mr. Bob Mills: May I move on, Mr. Chair, to fuel cells?

With transportation producing 25% of emissions, obviously downstream, or down somewhere, fuel cells could well make a big difference in those emissions. Next door we have manufacturers using hydrogen energy, demonstrating some of their wares.

What kind of timeline do you see for that sort of energy to be a real contributor to the reduction of greenhouse gases?

¹ (1555)

Hon. David Collenette: It really comes down to how much we are willing to invest as a society in alternative fuels to increase the commercial utility of those kinds of vehicles. It really is up to us, so I really couldn't give you any year. But I think the announcements that were made today by Mr. Rock and Mr. Dhaliwal on fuel cell investment show a certain degree of initiative in that regard. There are competing priorities for the treasury right across the board, and it's always a fight as to how much you can actually get.

We have made great strides, and Canada is a leader in technology for the use of alternative fuels. I think we will continue to lead.

Mr. Bob Mills: In the Kyoto plan there is a statement--and I believe it to be true--that if we were to reduce speeds, obviously we would help the emission problems. I have had cause to drive between Toronto and Niagara and Hamilton, and I drive four times a week on Highway 2 between Edmonton and Calgary. Certainly, the message hasn't got through very clearly, because I tend to drive at the allowable limit over the speed limit so as not to get a ticket, yet everyone else passes me. Certainly, it would seem to me that if truckers are to drive at 90 and cars to drive at 100, we're sure a long way from achieving that on those highways I mentioned. What can Transport Canada do about that? It says in the plan we're going to do something, but what are we going to do?

Hon. David Collenette: First of all, this is largely an issue under provincial jurisdiction. Some provinces actually want to increase the speed limits. In Ontario, where I believe the maximum is 100 kilometres per hour on the highways, at one point it was 115 or 120--70 miles per hour in the old language--and that was brought down. In the United States it's 55 miles per hour; it's lower than ours. A lot of this has to do with its being in provincial jurisdiction. It involves public education, which we can deal with from a national point of view, as we do with seat belt use.

I could turn your point around a little bit by saying that if you were to drive on the 401 within the GTA, you would be driving at an average speed of maybe 50 kilometres an hour, and that contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions. One of the real problems we have in cities like Toronto--we're not unique; it's the same throughout North America, in Europe, and in other parts of the world--is that congestion is causing an inordinate amount of discharge of greenhouse gas emissions. The argument there is not to drive slower. The argument is to take cars and trucks off the road to encourage intermodal cooperation between the trucking industry and rail, which is happening to some degree in key corridors in the U.S. and Canada; second, to provide enough public transit so people can get from point to point; and third, to design our cities and have our urban planning deal with the problem of sprawl.

The congestion we have in big cities in Canada, in Montreal, Toronto in particular, Vancouver, and now Calgary and Edmonton, is due to poor land use planning, to sprawl. The fact is that public transportation is not put in when communities are developed. Densities are not kept at where they should be at transportation nodes, and it forces people to use cars, which impedes the flow of trucks. One of the reasons we've just funded ring roads around Calgary and Edmonton is to help deal with truck traffic going through the core, because the truck traffic is being slowed down by automobile use.

As I said in my earlier comments, we have to change our whole lifestyles, including our perceptions and practices.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First off, thank you for coming here, Minister. During testimony before the Subcommittee on Marine Transportation of the Standing Committee on Transport, Mr. Richard Le Hir, President of the Shipping Federation of Canada, surmised that in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, Canada might be interested in pursuing the infrastructure, expansion and dredging proposal for the St. Lawrence Seaway as put forward by the US army.

Do you think that this might be something worth considering to link the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with that of upgrading our infrastructure?

º (1600)

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the proposal. Marine transportation in Canada and in particular on the St. Lawrence is an underutilized mode. In my view, use of the St. Lawrence Seaway must be promoted.

I'm thinking primarily about ice-breaking fees. The St. Lawrence Seaway is having trouble competing with other modes. As you know, the US army has undertaken a study into expanding this waterway. As I understand it, Canada is very close to joining in this study. However, many Members of Parliament from the Great Lakes region in Ontario see potential problems associated with water level fluctuations that could result from major changes to and the expansion of the Seaway.

However, I agree in principle with the proposal.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat surprised at this time to hear the minister express support for this particular proposal. I don't know whether he appreciates the impact this kind of project could have, notably on the Port of Montreal. Is he aware of the potential environmental impact, particularly in terms of shoreline erosion and the stirring up of sediment in the waterway?

Isn't it somewhat premature at this stage to tell the committee that the proposal is interesting, that studies are set to get under way and that the federal government is prepared to help fund the initiative and to co-operate with the US government?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Minister signed an agreement with his US counterpart on May 1 last. However, there was nothing in the agreement stating that Canada would support the Seaway infrastructure expansion and dredging project.

First of all, has the minister considered the environmental impact of this project on the waterway's ecosystem? And secondly, has he considered the project's impact on the Port of Montreal?

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite surprised to see my colleague so upset about my response. I indicated that we were prepared to collaborate with the US on studies to determine if in fact expanding the St. Lawrence Seaway was feasible. I made it very clear that my colleagues from the Great Lakes region had concerned about water levels.

I believe I've answered the questions. The member asked me if I agreed with the proposed expansion of the Seaway. I answered that I agreed with the idea in principle but that of course, the matter would need further study. Undoubtedly there will be some environmental problems. I accept that fact.

I'd appreciate it if you refrained from initiating broad political debates. I was sincere when I said that the matter would need to be studied further. We need to consider the potential impact of the Seaway's expansion on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just told us that he was prepared to invest money in this proposal. I don't know if the purpose in so doing is to achieve parity between the United States and Canada in so far as this project is concerned, but is the minister prepared...

º (1605)

Hon. David Collenette: On studies.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: On studies, naturally. In other words, to get your foot in the door.

Therefore, you're prepared to cooperate on project studies. The Transport Committee heard testimony from the Honourable Herb Gray, who serves on the IJC. He informed us that the IJC, an independent body, would be pleased to conduct such a study if so mandated by the Canadian and US governments. Is the minister prepared at this time to write to the IJC and request a study? Is he prepared to turn this over to an independent body rather than leave this matter in the hands of Canadian and US government officials?

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I've already discussed this matter with Mr. Gray on numerous occasions and we agree on the process that should be followed.

However, we are elected officials and we form the government. The same holds true in the United States. We have a responsibility to show leadership in the transportation and environment fields. I indicated to Mr. Gray that we were prepared to work with the IJC and to make certain that there were no major environmental problems. I think Mr. Gray is satisfied with my answer.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Comartin.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.

I was interested in your comments about your third theme, moving goods and the whole idea of prevention rather than having to go back to correct errors. I guess I want to challenge you on this.

I think you're fairly aware of the difficult problems we have in the Windsor-Detroit crossing corridor. Bureaucrats appointed by your government and the provincial government, Conservative as it was at that time, responded to several proposals with regard to the use of the rail tunnel that goes between Windsor and Detroit. The outstanding proposal was that the rail tunnel would be converted from entirely rail to rail and truck traffic, with rail going back and forth on one line and two lanes with exclusively truck traffic moving in both directions simultaneously.

That was the proposal. When your people got hold of it and the provincial people got hold of it, they eliminated the trains. As a matter of fact, if their proposal was accepted, there would be no use of cargo trains in that tunnel. I don't see how that jives with the comments you've made today. Why would that proposal even surface, eliminating that tunnel's availability for trains?

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, that is not the case with the proposal of the Detroit River Tunnel group.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It was not their proposal. It was the response from the government officials.

Hon. David Collenette: Perhaps I could just explain that the proposal that comes from Canadian Pacific and one of the infrastructure companies is to make the existing tunnels—only one bore is being used for freight right now—into truck-only tunnels for a toll, approaching the tunnels along the railway right of way on a two-lane road. The money that would accrue from the project would then finance two new tunnels, which would permit double-stacked containers to go on the CP system under the Detroit River.

You may remember, when the Canadian government owned Canadian National Railways, the public financed double-stacked rail tunnels at Sarnia-Port Huron, and this has given Canadian National a huge competitive advantage.

From a transportation competition point of view, and commensurate with the whole point about trying to encourage truck traffic to use rail and more intermodal, it seems to me a good public policy use to encourage better rail infrastructure. This was a novel idea that this company has come up with: to deal with the road congestion problems at Windsor through a truck-only system under the Detroit River, yet using the revenues to build a double-stack tunnel for rail.

This is still on the table. I won't comment on the various manifestations of the issue, because we now have a new Ontario government and there may be a new response. We're anxious to work with the new government to see how we can relieve the congestion in the Windsor area.

As you know, we've talked about a $300-million commitment to try to deal with the particular problem. From the transportation point of view, as well as from a congestion point of view and therefore an environmental point of view, I think there's some merit to the Detroit River tunnel project. The issue is whether or not the government should put money in under the infrastructure program, but we can, because it would be a private-public partnership.

º (1610)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Minister, your characterization of the proposal from the DRTP—the private sector—is accurate. The point I was making to you is that when the government people got hold of it, they eliminated the trains completely.

Hon. David Collenette: Which government? Who are you talking about?

Mr. Joe Comartin: The six...there were three from Ontario and three from the federal government. When their response came to that, they eliminated.... Go back and take a look at it.

Hon. David Collenette: No—

Mr. Joe Comartin: Let's disagree that's what they did. Do we agree—

Hon. David Collenette: I can tell you it's still very much on the table, which is the answer I think you want.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It is. The point I want to make is, do we agree that the federal government is not looking at eliminating trains from that tunnel?

Hon. David Collenette: You would have to eliminate trains if you're going to have trucks.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, I mean not completely eliminating trains. There will be one section of the tunnel for trains—

Hon. David Collenette: No. The whole point of the project is to have the two existing bores be reverse flow. Initially it would be by using one tunnel on reverse flows with traffic lights. Then the next tunnel would be prepared, and you would have one truck tunnel going that way and the other coming this way. But the money that would be accrued would then build two new bores for the CP main line for double-stacked containers.

So rail will be enhanced; that's the whole point. That's why I like that particular project so much. It will have the benefit of dealing with congestion in your neck of the woods and your city but also help transportation and competition.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

The second round will have Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Tonks and by the chair.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two issues, Minister, that I would like to talk to. One involves the ounce of prevention versus the pound of cure, and the other involves thinking outside the box.

I'll deal with the first one. We had a little discussion on it prior to this session. In the great riding of Halton, where I live, and adjacent to it in Peel, the planning system was pretty good, but it was overturned in many cases by the Ontario Municipal Board. Here we had a situation where the municipal planners had put together a combined residential and industrial complex so that people could live in their homes and virtually walk or bicycle to work if they wanted to. In other words, it would reduce the use of cars.

The consequence of what the OMB has done is to put thousands more cars on the road commuting into and from Mississauga, Toronto, or wherever every morning and every night. Right now the congestion is so bad that the little village I live in on Highway 7, the farming community of Norval, during rush hour is just as bad as any place in downtown Toronto, if not worse. I don't know what we can do as a federal government, but I am very concerned.

There's still development left. The town of Milton is growing now from 30,000 to 80,000 in a very few years. I wonder what we can still do to bring in that ounce of prevention.

º (1615)

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad Mr. Reed raised this, because this is a particular bête noire of mine. Just looking at my home region in the greater Toronto area, as a regional minister, I have seen for the past 20 years land use policies being followed that have really exacerbated the congestion and environmental problems we have to deal with now as a society.

Back in the seventies in particular, going into the early eighties, the Davis government, which wasn't a Liberal government, was remarkably developmental in its approaches to urban development. I didn't always agree with it, but it had a plan of greenbelts around large cities, here in Ottawa and in Toronto. In 1967, when it started the commuter rail GO Transit, the theory was that you would develop the smaller suburban towns like Brampton and Markham, with higher densities, but you would have green fields in between. You would not have sprawl. And what has happened, as Mr. Tonks knows, because he was chairman of the greater Toronto transit planning area--in fact, I'm sure he can comment better than I can--is that we have lost all manner of rationality to urban and land use planning.

As a result, because of the way that development was allowed to proceed, we have now, I would submit, greater traffic congestion problems in the 905 region around Toronto than in the 416 region. The transportation infrastructure was not put there. Now, that emanated from the provincial government relaxing controls and allowing the extension of big sewer pipes to promote development.

There is an issue you raise with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board. Many people criticize that board as undermining local planning controls, which is your point with regard to your own community. Hopefully that's something the new government will look at. In British Columbia, for instance, they have taken a different tack in recent years. In the greater Vancouver area, the municipalities are allowed to do their own planning. They're not overruled by a board that's subject to allegations of undue influence from the development industry, which can afford the high-priced legal counsel to go before that board.

You know, these are basically provincial issues, but they have a national impact, and I believe the federal government has a national role in dealing with the environmental problems from a health point of view. We have a constitutional role in health, and greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the deterioration of our health. With regard to congestion particularly, congestion costs about $2 billion a year in the greater Toronto area. There is the same kind of cost in other big cities across the country.

At the federal government level we don't have the jurisdiction to come across with plans to...and we can't impose them on the provinces, but we can try to encourage them, to work with them, and to try to set down parameters, through the infrastructure projects we contribute to, in order to encourage them to move in a certain direction.

On the issue of land use planning itself and on the issue of an overseeing body like the Ontario Municipal Board, that's something for the voters of Ontario. I'm very happy, because I think we now have a new provincial government in Ontario that will be very sensitive to these issues. The irony is that I found it easier to deal with the Government of Quebec, even though it was a separatist government, because they had a much more acceptable and enlightened view on these questions, I think, than the Government of Ontario did.

I should say here that the good cooperation with Quebec is continuing with Mr. Charest's government, and I would hope that with the new government in Ontario we can see a complete change of thought.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, I'll go to my question on thinking outside the box.

Last week, when I sat in on a discussion on assisted housing in Nunavut, we were told that in Rankin Inlet, a 2x4 costs $10 and a sheet of drywall costs $75. This severely limits the ability of government to give support, because so much of the money goes into the transportation of materials, just to get them up there. But there is a solution--I think I wrote to you about this around three years ago--and that is the development and use of lighter-than-air craft, heavy haulers that can operate as cheaply as trucks and deliver as quickly as trucks without a requirement for airstrips, without a requirement for roads. Some development was taking place three years ago in Germany and the United States, but I don't know whether there's been any pursuit of that since.

You've probably forgotten about the letter I wrote to you.

º (1620)

Hon. David Collenette: No. I remember all your correspondence, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: I suggest that, with a little thinking outside the box, lighter-than-air craft development may be a natural for Canada. We're not going to have roads everywhere.

Hon. David Collenette: Dirigibles, airships--that's what you're talking about?

Mr. Julian Reed: Yes.

Hon. David Collenette: I'm glad you raised this, because I'm a real keener on it. Some people think I'm a bit of a Jules Verne when I wax eloquent about it. But we actually funded a conference last year in Winnipeg, led by the University of Manitoba and Dr. Barry Prentice. We brought experts in from the United States, Canada, and Russia.

I believe this is an answer in northern regions, where you cannot afford to build the road infrastructure to bring in the heavy supplies. The airship concept fizzled out, if you'll pardon the expression, with the crashing of the Hindenburg in the late 1930s and the loss of life. But the fact is that this kind of technology is very useful in dealing with the situations you describe. Technological advances are being made. Certainly the position I take as minister, and my department when we're funding these kinds of initiatives, is that in principle we are for the expansion of the airship industry to deal with some of the big problems you described.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the minister and his associates for being here.

On the lighter side, Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues asked me, “What's the target date to reach the first phase of our Kyoto reduction objectives on greenhouse gases?” I said, “Let's say 2012”. He said, “That's a narrow window to change the configuration of our cities”.

It leads me to the question that was raised by the Commissioner of the Environment. I want to take off from where Mr. Mills started. The Commissioner of the Environment was not so much applying traditional accounting techniques to the reduction of greenhouse gases in terms of a balance sheet. I think what she was trying to say is that in all of the programs we have, whether it's the smart commuting, telecommuting, or smart technology initiatives, all of the initiatives you've indicated here, how do you start to evaluate how behaviour change is starting to occur with regard to how cities are growing? Are they going to simply grow layer-cake fashion in terms of sprawl, or are we going to be able to have an evaluation or evaluative architecture that is going to tell us that these programs are starting to redefine the way cities are growing? I think that's what we were trying to get a handle on. So my question is, is the department looking at the suggestions and the evaluations?

I take very seriously the point you made.

I was quite surprised, Mr. Chairman, to see an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail that actually is a commentary on the commentary and goes, I think, a little bit beyond the terms of reference of the Auditor General and the commissioner in this case.

I would like you to have the opportunity to respond to the committee on this. Do you take the suggestions and observations and attempt to redefine that as a litmus test or a benchmark against which you look at new applications in terms of how they're going to start to change the growth strategies of cities, without getting into the planning jurisdictions and so on? Is the department engaged in that kind of analysis of the Commissioner of the Environment's...?

Hon. David Collenette: I think Mr. Sully can answer this in detail.

For all government programs, when you go to cabinet, you have to look at the impact of those expenditures, and there has to be some kind of provision for evaluation. Government doesn't just give out the money. You have to see whether or not the desired impact is being achieved, and that is built into each particular program.

On this set, Mr. Sully can give you a direct answer.

º (1625)

Mr. Ronald Sully: I think there are two or three different responses, first of all, on whether we learn from what the commissioner says or what the AG says. I can give you one example.

A few years ago we had an audit done of our highway programs. These are cost-sharing programs that we've had in existence with the provinces going back about 25 years. It was a very critical report, critical in the way that we selected projects and the way we justified them.

I can tell you that one of the responses to that is that for every single project now, even if it's only a $1-million project, we do an environmental assessment, we estimate the greenhouse gas reductions or increases that are associated with that project, and we estimate the impact on safety--the number of accidents avoided, the number of fatalities avoided, for example.

With respect to more climate-change-related projects, I guess the first point I'd make is that to get the program approval in cabinet is quite a competitive process. We have to demonstrate to our colleagues that what we are proposing is cost effective in terms of the megatonnes of reductions that we think we can achieve. Beyond that, as the minister has said, when we go to Treasury Board it's required that we have a results-based management accountability framework in place that sets out all of the measures and indicators we will use.

I can tell you, as another example, that with regard to some of the projects the minister made reference to at the outset, some of the transit-related projects, when we set up the agreements for those, we negotiate with the project sponsors; we try to make sure they are meeting their obligations vis-à-vis the supplementary things that need to be done to get people out of their cars and onto those transit systems. There again, we are doing specific measurements of the greenhouse gas reductions that will come from the program, and we will be accountable, as we spend the money, to deliver those reductions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, the most important things you reminded us of really came at the end with the idea of changing attitudes. Canada, I think, has been identified as the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita, for a variety of reasons. We're a colder country than some, on average, but we do have some pretty bad habits.

It makes me ask the question: have we had a comprehensive discussion across the other departments as well as to how we are all collectively coordinating our efforts to plant those seeds to help Canadians change attitudes?

Hon. David Collenette: We have gone through, in the last 18 months, an exhaustive process with the climate change reference group. I was a member, and Mr. Sully came to most of the meetings and sometimes attended when I couldn't make it. This was the theme that ran through a lot of those discussions, and they were rather exhaustive discussions.

The problem is that the federal government can only do so much. We have to work with the provinces. As Mr. Mills raised about speed limits, we need the cooperation of the provinces; we need the buy-in. Public education we can do at a certain level, but we have to be careful that we don't intrude into provincial jurisdiction. But certainly I think there is a growing awareness.

As someone who grew up in this country and came from another country that was very, very confined in terms of the resources it had, I was stunned at the waste, the fact that you could turn on the tap ad infinitum and get cold water; the fact that you didn't have to worry about heating a whole house--in our case, we were lucky to have one room heated; and the whole issue of cars. Everybody drives cars. We are an automobile-based society, and we always will be to a large degree because we have such wide-open spaces. We cannot apply the mentality of urban congestion in the greater Toronto area to people in rural Canada, such as in Mr. Mills's riding, who don't have the luxury of a subway train or a streetcar or a bus system. They have to drive.

However, we have to change our attitudes. We have been a wasteful society. I think in the discussions we had at the climate change reference group, one of the themes that really continued to emerge was how do each of the measures that we come forward with and that were announced by the Prime Minister and Mr. Anderson in the program early this summer deal with changes in behaviour, and deal with them from the point of view of the federal government actually having jurisdiction and having the right to lead in that area?

º (1630)

Mr. Paul Szabo: On the last little part about the changing of attitudes, 2012 isn't very far off, given the challenge we have undertaken under our Kyoto commitment. Has anyone talked strategically about whose attitudes should change? I'm not so sure that those who are already set in their ways and very comfortable with their mode of lifestyle are going to be swayed by “public good” arguments, as opposed to the younger people, the people in the schools, the leaders of tomorrow, who will be the decision-makers, etc.

Have we talked about it in terms of targeting, messaging programs at demographics, where we feel we can get a better influence on the outcomes?

Hon. David Collenette: I think the magnitude of the problem that is developing is actually having an effect on behaviour patterns, even for an older generation. In my constituency, and I'm sure it's the same in yours, there are a lot of retired people who are in their large homes, and in my area they're now moving into condominiums and they're selling their cars. They're moving into condominiums in the central core in Toronto, in downtown Toronto, on the subway lines, on the streetcar lines, so their attitudes are changing.

I think where we really have to work at it is through the schools, through the education system, and I think the young people have a great receptivity to the environmental problems we face than people of other generations.

Mr. Paul Szabo: One last quick one, and I asked this of another minister, whether the minister thought it would be helpful for us to have a single portal for Canadians to engage themselves in Kyoto and our progress, etc., because even in your presentation you have associated yourself with things that go across more than one department. If we go to the Government of Canada website, we will see in virtually every department some efforts taking place on Kyoto.

Do you think it might be useful if we started to put all this stuff through Environment Canada's site and have links where there's more information and detail when it is required at a specific departmental level?

Hon. David Collenette: I think that's a very good point. One of the interesting things that I've noticed in the last few years in government is that the traditional methodology of governing is changing, for the reasons you state: there are so many problems that cross jurisdictions.

It really hit me when we dealt with the homeless. You know, Mr. Szabo and others from the greater Toronto area, we were smashing on the door of the bureaucracy of the Prime Minister's office up here to get a response on the homeless, but we were being rebuffed because somehow the homeless didn't fit into any of the departmental silos. Finally, we busted that door open. The Prime Minister appointed a cabinet committee under my colleague, Jane Stewart. Then, of course, he appointed the climate change reference group, which was interdisciplinary.

So this is a change in government that I've seen in the last few years that must continue. How to communicate those efforts--I think you're right, there has to be a central clearing house, or portal, as you say. Mr. Sully was just whispering to me about the one-tonne challenge program. There is an interdisciplinary website that deals with these issues. But more and more we need to do that so that Canadians can log on to it, and not have to log on to 10 different departments, which I think is your point.

º (1635)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

There are two or three questions from the chair before we start the second round. The first question, Mr. Minister, has to do with the excellent sustainable development strategy by Transport Canada for the year 2001 and 2003. Your officials ought to be congratulated. It makes interesting reading. The strategy expires in 2003 and it contains a very good chapter on reducing air emissions.

The question is this: when will the next strategy be issued?

Hon. David Collenette: As Mr. Sully said, we hope to table this at the end of December. It hasn't yet come up to me, but we update it on an annual basis. It's a statutory provision.

Mr. Ronald Sully: It's a statutory requirement for every department.

The Chair: Will it have the same title or heading, “sustainable development strategy”?

Hon. David Collenette: Yes, but if you want us to call it something else, we're open to ideas—if you feel it would resonate more.

The Chair: We would like to advise your department on more central things than just titles.

Hon. David Collenette: Well, you raised it.

The Chair: Let me ask you a question about MOST, moving on sustainable transportation. It was not mentioned in your opening remarks, probably for a very good reason, but could you give us an idea of whether it has been a success and what its status is?

Hon. David Collenette: I'll ask Madam Higgens to deal with that.

Mrs. Catherine Higgens (Director, Environmental Initiatives Division, Department of Transport): We've actually been very pleased with the results of the program. Its first three years of operation were followed by a program audit, where we looked for ways to evaluate the impact of the program and ways to improve it. Overall that evaluation was very positive, and we incorporated some changes—and some very important ones that I think were picked up by the commissioner as well—relating to the need to roll up in some fashion the cumulative impact of the program. We have plans to do that. We've developed a framework, and it will be available this fall. We're also looking to disseminate the results a bit more through our Internet website.

I would mention that MOST is not a climate change program per se. It has climate change as one of its objectives, but it also has an equally important objective of improving the awareness and understanding by Canadians of sustainable transportation. It's much broader than simply climate change.

Overall it's had a quite an impact for the size of its budget. It's had quite a reach across the country and in many urban centres.

The Chair: Thank you.

In your closing remarks, Mr. Minister, you launched a theme of behaviour and a change of behaviour. You emphasized the importance of that change. It was also picked up by Mr. Szabo.

There is no doubt that public education is important. The federal Department of Health engages in public education programs quite extensively and doesn't seem to be worried by federal-provincial constitutional limitations. Surely there is scope for Transport Canada to launch a public education program on TV and in other media—for instance, to move from road to rail, or shifting from the car to urban transit, etc. What are you planning for the future in terms of public education?

º (1640)

Hon. David Collenette: Most of the public education we do deals with safety issues, such as seat belt use and things of that nature.

You raise a good point, but each of the examples you gave is somewhat controversial. Every time I talk about intermodal use and encourage greater intermodality, the president of the Canadian Trucking Association fires off an angry tirade in the Globe and Mail accusing me of being a rail-based freak or some such thing.

The fact is that we are now only dealing with that kind of education. We committed to it in our Straight Ahead transportation document, which hopefully the members of the committee will read. We have been a bit controversial in some of the directions we've taken in Straight Ahead, which talks about constraining traditional behaviour, promoting urban transit, promoting intermodality. I don't know about our starting an advertising program saying “Leave your car at home”. Then we'll get angry letters from Mr. Mills's constituency saying, “You're wasting your money, because I have no alternative to my car.”

It's not “one size fits all” in this case, but it's a good point. It's something you really have to do, I think, maybe on a regional basis, but you do it as an addition to investments you make such as GO Transit and the moneys put into GO Transit. In the greater Toronto area we might, especially if we invest in the TTC in the next few months, want to engage in that, but then we would be criticized for just advertising in the greater Toronto area and maybe not in other parts of the country.

The Chair: The name of the game, as we all know, is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the Canadian Trucking Association has ideas on how to do that, they would be most welcome.

The fact that Health Canada launched a campaign to reduce tobacco smoking, for instance, did not please the tobacco industry, obviously. It is inevitable in the pursuit of a national goal and of an international commitment that a public education campaign could cause some unhappy replies, but that shouldn't impede you from doing so.

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Sully can tell you about this; he doesn't have to whisper to me. He can talk about the one-tonne program—

The Chair: Yes, we're all familiar with the one-tonne program. This is for every citizen. We have discussed it here with Mr. Anderson.

What we are now putting the focus on is what Transport Canada can do in the pursuit of public education to achieve a certain national or international goal.

Hon. David Collenette: Some of this is so controversial we have to make sure we don't muddy the waters. You talk about the Canadian Trucking Association. If Mr. Bradley, the president, were here, he would argue that trucks are much more fuel-efficient than rail, with the kind of fuel it uses and all the rest. These are controversial dimensions.

What I think is best for us to do on that score is to encourage intermodal applications, to encourage a more level playing field with respect to rail that will make them more competitive and will encourage intermodal.

That's what's happening. In the Montreal to Windsor corridor, we have an incredible increase of intermodal use. In fact, the intermodal section of the CPR's business is 25% and CN's is 20%. It's the fastest-growing segment of the business for each of Canada's railroads. But it can only increase more than that if you make basic infrastructure investments in rail.

Then you get the truckers, who are a very volatile group, who say that this is totally and patently unfair. What we're finding is that big trucking companies are actually finding it's in their interest to enter into alliances with rail. So it's better to take the more collaborative approach than for us to start sponsoring ads that will launch a public debate and might confuse the issue.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you.

On the second round, we'll go to Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I have heard, Mr. Minister, that you are a rail-based freak, but seeing that I'm a model railway fan, I thought I probably wouldn't mention that.

Let me just ask you about a problem I think we have in this whole area. First of all, quite often—this is coming from Alberta—we are going to make exemptions. Syncrude says they have a letter that says tar sands will be exempt from really heavy hits from climate change targets. Then we have the auto industry in Ontario saying they have been exempted. Then we have senior civil servants saying auto makers got off the hook before a firm commitment for a boosting of fuel-efficient cars was extracted . Of course, we have a target of 25% reduction by 2010.

It seems to me we're going to do what the Americans do when it comes to automobiles. They're not going to produce a special automobile for the Canadian market; it's just too small. What Detroit says is going to happen is probably what's going to happen in Canada, and if not, they're going to move those plants to wherever but not leave them in Canada. Isn't that the reality of the market?

Hon. David Collenette: I'll let Mr. Sully give you a detailed response, but the fact is that certain states like California are ahead of many jurisdictions in Canada in dealing with fuel efficiency. What we are seeing is not a reluctance or a recalcitrance on the part of the auto industry, but a willingness to work together. The auto industry is totally integrated in North America. Obviously you're right; what is going to be done in the U.S. is going to be done here, and vice versa.

On safety, in many cases we actually lead by innovative measures we encourage the auto industry to use. On this, I don't think it's quite as negative as perhaps you portrayed it. I think there's a genuine willingness to move to more sustainable targets and more fuel-efficient vehicles. More and more of that pressure is coming from individual states like California.

Perhaps Mr. Sully can talk to you about the general issue.

Are we running out of time?

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I realize I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I'd like to focus once again on the proposed Seaway infrastructure project. I'm thoroughly convinced that this project will have an economic impact on Montreal, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. The impact on the waterway of giant freighters over 1,000 feet in length cannot be denied. Tom Muir from Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute estimated that increasing the tonnage of ocean-going vessels on the Great Lakes would inevitably result in higher levels of contamination by invasive species. This particular problem has already cost Canada and the United States billions of dollars.

We know that feasibility studies will be done. Our sources tell us that these studies will cost in the neighbourhood of $20 million. Can you confirm to us if these studies—because we found out today that Canada and the US had committed themselves to doing a joint study—will in fact cost $20 million? What percentage of the costs will Canada assume? Will costs be split equally with the United States? Or, will Canada not be paying anything for this study? Which is it?

Hon. David Collenette: As I said, Mr. Chairman, the US army and Department of Transportation have suggested a study into the possible expansion of the Seaway. We support this idea, but as I said, many Canadians, especially those living in the Great Lakes region, are concerned about the potential impact of the waterway's expansion.

Any forward-looking society has an obligation to focus on the future, and not dismiss off-hand any expansion proposals. The government is prepared to participate in the studies to determine if the proposal is feasible. All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence form a natural infrastructure that we need to use, precisely for environmental reasons. Marine transportation is in fact the most environmentally friendly mode of transport, not to mention a more efficient mode than surface or rail transport. We have an obligation to look into ways of increasing our use of this particular mode.

º (1650)

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, we do have such a thing as sustainable modal transportation. Nevertheless, I'm curious as to the sum of money the Canadian government is prepared to invest in this study. Would the cost of the study be shared equally by both countries? The minister hasn't yet answered that question, even though this information is public. We have a fundamental right to know how much this study will cost. Our tax dollars are at issue here.

Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, no decision has yet been made on cost-sharing in the case of the studies. Theoretically, we're prepared to work with the US army and transportation department to determine if the proposal is feasible and sound, from both a transportation and an environmental standpoint.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Minister, I think the concept of a high-speed rail link between Quebec City and Windsor has been floating around now for two decades. And I know you have on numerous occasions spoken out expressing interest, if not outright support, for the idea, whether it be a government or a partnership type of arrangement. Could you give the committee an indication of what the situation is at the present time in terms of that corridor ever being established?

Hon. David Collenette: We have a good passenger rail network between Quebec City and Windsor; we have a national network. But 80% of the revenues come from the corridor from Quebec City to Windsor. Everyone who lives in the region, like you, knows that the corridor is becoming incredibly congested. That is why we are interested in trying to encourage intermodal use to get trucks and railways to work together to take the trucks off the long haul.

By the same token, we're interested in the better and more efficient transportation of passengers rather than having them just being in their cars. This is somewhat controversial because the airline industry is resistant, and I understand why they are. In the last two years we've been hit with a cataclysm that we've never seen before because of the terrorist attacks and SARS. But the airline industry is coming out of its funk. I think by late 2004-2005 the airline industry will be coming back to health. But there are countries in the world, like Japan and France, that have made public policy choices whereby they said we must, as a society, show a preference for the most environmentally sustainable and efficient mode of transport in congested areas. And, yes, what the French government did with their massive investments in the TGV, which has worked, has had an impact on the air industry. It's pretty tough to fly from London to Paris or Brussels now, and it's the same for Lyon; most people go by train. I think you probably can find flights, but the fact is those people are taking alternative means of transport.

In Canada, an upgrade of the Quebec-Windsor corridor would, yes, take airline passengers away, but it would also take a lot of passengers off the road and therefore obviate the cost of road expansion, and congestion, idling of cars and trucks, and all the rest, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

On the last point, which is where are we on this, we're at the end of the mandate. This implies an issue of a massive injection in funds, which is probably something the new government would have to consider, but we still have under consideration a significant funding of the VIA capital plan that will work toward the goal of VIA Fast in the long run. The issue is very much alive in the coming months, but I would hope the new government would take up the challenge to pursue it to fruition.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I'll give you a perspective from northern Saskatchewan, living in the boreal forests. In transportation terms, the Beaver is still probably the most prominent transportation system, and the Twin Otter. Canada doesn't make those any more. A Twin Otter just went to South America. It was the proudest technology we could make, and now we don't reproduce it.

The other thing is that the military has a vehicle that needs replacement. Why can't Canada put its mind and its technology and perspective into designing a military vehicle that I, as a normal Canadian, could maybe purchase, maybe an energy-efficient vehicle that's conducive to this climate?

Another example I'll use is putting the wrong products to the wrong use. I was in Bosnia just last year, and the army boots, the traction.... I know you're Transport Minister, but traction is a big part of this. We can't defend Canada with those army boots, because we'll get pushed around. As soon as there's ice, the army can't stand up on it.

So I'm saying let's take on this challenge.

You talk about a light rail corridor within Canada. I'll offer you this leaf. In this leaf, there are many connections, many ecosystems within Canada. “Eco” means “economic” and “ecological”. People live in those regions; so does the environment, and so does the responsibility.

I'm talking about northern Saskatchewan, with all the wealth of resources. There's a bill being debated in the House right now on natural resources and opening up the capitalization of resources. If we are going to do business with the United States and Mexico, why can't we do a light rail, directly from northern Saskatchewan, from Green Lake, where there's a train station ready, all the way to Gruene, Texas, just in the footsteps of the Rio Grande? Why can't we think like that?

I look at the buffalo. The buffalo were eliminated from the Great Plains, and the train played a big part of that whole history. Why can't we reverse that history, use the train, and maybe we can bring back the buffalo run? Make that train go north-south, because all the trains went east-west and cut off the buffalo run. Maybe we can change direction, and with NAFTA and all our agreements, our international agreements and our responsibilities for the environment and sustainable development, maybe have a master plan of a transportation system that could serve the whole country. That's what I see from northern Saskatchewan.

I look also to the west, to Alberta, with an abundance of resources and its transportation system. As soon as you hit Alberta, you'll find the best highways. In Saskatchewan, with our potholes...man, we're proud when we get our vehicles onto Alberta ground--the longevity of the vehicles, and the depreciation is knocked off.

We've been looking for a road from Fort McMurray, an east-west connection. We've been trying to convince from a mid-Canada perspective. Open up the map of Canada and look at it. All the development is in the southern part, along the 49th parallel. Look to the next level, mid-Canada, the northern half of each province. What are we doing collectively with a mind to developing a transportation system in cognizance of Kyoto and our commitments?

We were there in Japan, and we know there are island states. We know the north is going to be impacted with this, but we have to make these changes. So as a country, I think we can show the world, especially as a northern country where we are high energy users.

Let's show the world. Let's be an example. Let's take care of our military. Let's take care of our vast regions, our communities.

I live in a small community. I come from a community of a thousand people. You're talking here of plans for the mega-cities, cities of mega-economies. Let's look at the communities that need to sustain themselves as well in an affordable way. It's high-cost, but we want to help.

There are communities like Oujé-Bougamou, which uses district energy. These are advances we can use, but in the transportation field I think it's limitless. Canada needs a vehicle that we can be proud of, and maybe a light rail system that is as diverse as this leaf. Not only one corner of Canada is being served. Maybe we can serve all regions and in all directions. So let's look at this master plan through the eyes of our young people, because that's the legacy; that's what we're going to be leaving them.

Thank you.

º (1655)

The Chair: And the question is, isn't that so?

Hon. David Collenette: There are some noble sentiments there.

On the issue of military procurement and boots, and all the rest, I spent three years defending the military, and I think I'll leave that to Mr. McCallum.

With respect to the issue of transportation and the notion of a mid-Canada corridor--I know you're very keen on that, and it's a concept very much developed by General Richard Rohmer--it's something that conceptually I think is very appealing, but because of our own preoccupation with development, as has occurred, and the need to put resources to deal with those problems, we really haven't embarked on that.

I think there's some logic to ensuring that development is better dispersed across the country and that it's not all concentrated along the U.S border. Of course, the Soviets did that, but look what methods they used to open up those areas equivalent to the mid-Canada corridor.

The fact is, in a free society we cannot force people to live in areas, but we can give incentives. Here I'm getting out of transportation and more into regional development incentives.

As Mr. Caccia would remember from the Trudeau years, we had a program for regional economic development, which came under assault from the neo-conservatives in the 1980s, and there was a recoiling away from regional development grants.

The fact of the matter is that unless we re-engage in that kind of program, we're going to have more and more people from northern Saskatchewan, or Newfoundland, or other parts of Canada, migrate to the big cities, which don't have the infrastructure to deal with a lot of the problems, where the quality of life starts to be eroded and where the cost-effectiveness of providing the infrastructure really more than outweighs any cost that could be made for regional development grants to keep industries in certain parts of the country.

We're really getting out of the transportation area with this, but I think it's an issue that certainly has environmental implications and perhaps is part of an industrial policy. You talked about the airplanes in particular. Perhaps that's something you can have Mr. Rock address when he comes to this committee.

» (1700)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Does your ministry employ a psychologist?

Hon. David Collenette: Are you thinking we need one?

Oh, you mean for policy, not for the employees.

Mr. Julian Reed: What I'm getting at, Minister, is the fact that in past history, if you look at motivating people or changing people's habits, people respond to crisis.

In the late 1970s, when oil was spiking at $50 a barrel in Chicago and the prediction was that it was going to go to $120, it precipitated the biggest single voluntary conservation effort in North America. The Americans changed their speed limits to 55 miles an hour. It spelled the end of the “boat”; they got into compact cars for the first time, and so on. It happened because of a crisis.

Today, on the climate change issue, we have a number of crises, but they're out there somewhere. The polar bears are starving at Hudson Bay, the permafrost is leaving the Mackenzie Valley, the arctic ice shelf is thinning, and so on, but that sense of crisis hasn't reached the general population of Canada.

So I suppose the only counter to that is education, communication with our citizens. I realize I'm being a little facetious in saying that, but the fact is that somehow or other, in order to meet these targets, to meet the one-tonne challenge, and so on, people have to be motivated to do it. If they aren't motivated through crisis, they need to be motivated through altruism, if you wish, or through the desire to make their contribution to the climate change issue. That's why I asked the question.

Hon. David Collenette: I think you're right. Most people don't focus on the breaking up of the ice fields. I remember when I was in Defence some years ago, I was struck going to Axel Heiberg Island in the Northwest Territories, actually seeing the glacier recede and seeing how it had receded over the past 10 to 15 years. That had an impact on me, but there are very few people who go and see that.

But what is really starting to make people think are some of the natural disasters we've had to deal with in the last few years. I don't have any scientific proof to make this statement, but my intuition tells me it's not just a fluke that we have had the kinds of problems we've had with the ice storm, the floods in the Saguenay, the floods in the Red River, the hurricane last week in Halifax, the forest fires in B.C., and the ones we've had in Manitoba. It just seems that these natural occurrences are a result of a destabilization of the environmental patterns we have been used to.

Being among the great unwashed, I would think there is something to this. For some leaders in the world and others to argue that the science isn't there to show we have climate change, I just shake my head, because you can point to so many examples.

I think ordinary Canadians are starting to wake up to the fact. We've had some very hot summers. Look at what happened in Europe. Paris is a beautiful city, one of the most beautiful in the world, and the people have never thought of themselves as vulnerable aside from, say, the Second World War. But this year they've realized there's a great vulnerability and that the heat wave there is probably not going to be the last.

Why is it occurring? Are these just temporary flukes? No. I think there's a genuine shift in the environment that's causing this. People are gradually waking up to it, and I think the younger people in particular are more receptive. When I was a kid, it was a mark of distinction to lie out on the beach for hours on end, to swim in the pool or the lake and to get as brown as a berry. Today we're told this is harmful from the point of view of skin cancer, and I think most people now use sunblock. They wear hats. So attitudes do change. I think people are becoming aware of the problem.

» (1705)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, the green commute program, the United States' federal program on telecommuting, has been organized within a framework with the cities and the state governments. Have we done any research with respect to telecommuting and applying the green commute program at least to our federal employees as a start and then looking at the kind of framework they're using in the States?

Mr. Ronald Sully: I would say we're on the verge of getting into telecommuting in a serious way. With the green commute program there were three phases. The first stage was a heavy emphasis on active transportation, things like walking and cycling to work, and we've installed bicycle racks and put in showers for the employees, that kind of thing. The second phase was a big emphasis on transit. We're coming to the end of our first year of the transit pass pilot project, which is led by Transport Canada but involves three other departments in Ottawa. The third phase, then, would be to look seriously at telecommuting and see what we can do with it. As I'm sure you're aware, it has been tried many times, sometimes with success but I would say more often with failure.

There has been a proposal made to us by a company whereby we could somehow bank the credits that would be earned through people working from home and use that as part of our commitment for greenhouse gas reduction. These are things we need to look at, I'd say, over the next year.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, what do you think the role of Transport Canada and yours could be in relation to making transit passes tax deductible so as to match the tax deductibility of parking expenses in the Income Tax Act?

Hon. David Collenette: Well, as the Minister of Transport, I've been in favour of that. That's been our department's position, but it's a matter for the Department of Finance to decide upon. They have a lot of competing priorities for the dollar, and that's really a taxation issue, a financial issue, that should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.

» (1710)

The Chair: I'll continue on the emphasis you also placed on behaviour by the public. According to the competitive media reporting on Canadians' behaviour, in the period between 1990 and 2001, $9 billion U.S. was spent on advertising SUVs. In the year 2000 alone, $1.51 billion U.S. was spent on advertising SUVs. By contrast, recent news stories cite $30 million in federal expenditures during the period of 1998 to 2001 to help change people's attitudes towards climate change. You can see from this comparison of amounts what an uphill battle you are facing in convincing the public to use vehicles that are less fuel-consuming. Does the fact that we are facing here a media competition with the manufacturers point to a lost battle?

Hon. David Collenette: I'm probably not as knowledgeable to answer the question, but it seems to me we made real progress in the seventies and eighties with respect to emissions of conventional automobiles. But as I understand it, and Mr. Sully can correct me, there was a different regime for what was known as light trucks, largely to deal with small businesses, farmers, and other self-employed people. We made real progress with respect to emissions, but then the automobile companies cottoned on to the fact that they could take these light trucks and make them into what we call sport utility vehicles. In effect, they have become luxury vehicles, and of course they don't have the same fuel efficiency as conventional cars.

I suspect what's going to happen is that the same kind of impetus is going to come from states like California, which has been the traditional leader in this as the leader on car emissions in the 1960s and 1970s, and eventually there will be national standards that will force a change in thinking. I don't think it's something we in Canada can actually be part of. I don't think we can be the ones who really lead unless we're prepared to say that we ban all sport utility vehicles. I think one out of every two sales in Canada and the U.S. now is a sport utility vehicle. You'll face a consumer revolution. The idea, really, is to make these vehicles much more fuel-efficient using the same kind of technique that was used before.

Now, Mr. Sully just wanted to mention the ATV program, which deals with some specifics of your point.

The Chair: When can we expect a more strict set of standards for vehicle efficiency? In other words, is there a target date and are there target standards for improving and tightening up the performance of vehicles? When is that going to be announced?

Mr. Ronald Sully: As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative led by the Minister of Natural Resources, the negotiations with the auto companies. I can't give you a specific date, but certainly there was a commitment made that by the time of the Kyoto commitment period we would have realized a 25% improvement.

Now, everyone understands that once you've negotiated something, you do have to give the automakers reasonable time to adjust their production. In the U.S. it's something in the order of 18 months before a model year appears, so we are certainly looking at a couple of years down the road before we could implement something.

The Chair: So you are saying there will be a 25% improvement in efficiency by fleets, within which period of time?

Mr. Ronald Sully: The commitment was to achieve that 25% improvement by 2010, I believe. That would be on a sales-weighted basis, so that would be for all of the new vehicles sold in that year. We would see a 25% improvement from where we were.

» (1715)

The Chair: But if you're saying that 18 months are required by manufacturers to adjust their schedules, why does it take seven years--according to what you just said--to achieve the 25% reduction?

Mr. Ronald Sully: The idea is you negotiate a certain schedule of improvements, and the new technologies are introduced over time. It isn't as if one year you have nothing and then the next year you have a completely different mix of vehicles, or different types of vehicles. It has to be phased in. I'm saying that from the initial phase-in period, the initial year, you have to back up about 18 months, in fairness to the automakers, to allow them to prepare. That's what they do in the U.S.

The Chair: But do you think that seven years are required to go through this cycle?

Mr. Ronald Sully: Given the ramp-up that would be required for vehicle sales, it would certainly be required.

The Chair: What is the ramp-up?

Mr. Ronald Sully: If I can use one example, you see hybrid vehicles now being sold in the market. In the first year, the sales by Toyota and Honda are very limited. In the second year they are more, and in the third year they are more. There's a matter of consumer acceptance, pricing, and the manufacturers deciding on the next vehicle to market in the country.

My understanding is that this year in the U.S. alone there are 10,000 orders for the Toyota Prius, which is quite phenomenal compared to where we were a couple of years ago.

The Chair: How do you explain then why the European efficiency standards for vehicles are much better than North America's?

Mr. Ronald Sully: My understanding is that in Europe they have negotiated a roughly 25% improvement in vehicle efficiency as well. This is on the part of the European Union negotiating with the auto associations. So the intention is there, but I think it's premature to say we've seen success in that program. They're like us; they're just launching into the initiative.

The Chair: No, but their performance per 100 kilometres in consumption of gasoline is much lower than ours. That's what I mean. In other words, their standards are much better than ours.

Mr. Ronald Sully: It is true that the average consumption is better in Europe and in Japan. That basically says that the mix of vehicles, the vehicle fleets, on average are smaller in Europe and in Japan. I think we all realize that a lot of that has to do with the kind of geography they have and the price. There's no question that in the U.K. and France, for example, the price of fuel is three or four times what it is here. So people have had an incentive since the early seventies to adjust their buying habits, and the automakers have responded.

The other thing you see in Europe that you don't see so much here is a big emphasis on diesel fuel technology. We have been limited here, partially by the quality of the diesel fuel. But we expect that as the diesel fuel is cleaned up, we will see more diesel vehicle sales in Canada. In some countries in Europe, up to 40% and 50% of sales are of diesel-powered vehicles.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sully.

Are there any further questions? No more.

Mr. Minister, we are very indebted to you and your officials for being here with us today to share your views and expectations on Kyoto. We'll keep in touch.

Hon. David Collenette: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We now have the motion by Mr. Comartin. Would you like to move it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes. I would move it, as presented.

The Chair: Would you like to address it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

I think Mr. Szabo may want an intervention, and I'm prepared to agree with that.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Just for the information of the committee--and Mr. Comartin may confirm it--this motion is identical to a motion that was considered by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The Chair: That would be part of his presentation.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand that.

» (1720)

The Chair: So let him have a chance to present it.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That was actually going to be the first point I was going to make, Mr. Chair, but I thank Mr. Szabo for his comment.

It is in fact identical to the resolution that was presented and passed to Fisheries and Oceans in the spring at the request of Mr. Gray, and I think Mr. Schornack was at that meeting as well, if I recall.

I thought the wording, when I first saw it, when my staff first brought it to my attention, was a bit convoluted. I guess I still think that, but rather than digress and send to the powers that be two different resolutions, I felt it made more sense to remain consistent.

Essentially, what we're attempting to do here at the request of the commission is encourage both governments, in Canada and the United States, to formally authorize the commission and empower them to deal with the threat of alien invasive species in the Great Lakes. We've heard presentations, I think on more than one occasion, on the impact it has had, is having, and probably will have for a number of generations to come, and on the need to deal with it and that they are a logical body to expand their jurisdiction in terms of dealing with it.

Those are my comments. I would ask all committee members to support the motion.

The Chair: The question this motion raises, Mr. Comartin, is whether by coordinating and harmonizing, the objectives will be achieved. Wasn't the intent of the IJC to have an intensification of the efforts? Was it just to coordinate and harmonize? Is that where the problem is?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, as we know, they've already been doing research, but as I understand the situation, the research they've done up to this point has been—if I can put it this way—incidental to their existing jurisdiction with regard to the water in the Great Lakes. And there is no formal authority. It's not simply to coordinate and harmonize; it would also allow them to continue to do the work in the way of studying the problem in detail, which they have in fact been doing, but as I say, incidentally to other responsibilities they have.

The Chair: Here you have an international joint commission that was created to coordinate and harmonize what it does, and now it requires a parliamentary motion in order to do what it is supposed to do in the first place. They sit there and talk to each other all the time. You would think this is part of their regular daily activity.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think in response to that, Mr. Chair, we have to take into account that the jurisdiction that's authorized stems from a treaty going back to...it's either Treaty 8 or Treaty 9. At the time, invasive species were certainly not contemplated in the jurisdiction. So I think that's part of what we have to appreciate--the historical context of it.

I think your point is well taken. You would expect they would be able to do this within the existing jurisdiction, but certainly the information we have from both sides of the commission, both sides of the border, is that in fact they do not.

The Chair: Thank you.

Does the committee want to coordinate and harmonize?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I have the same view, but there seems to be some lack of buy-in at the IJC to the extent that I think we would like to see in terms of the interpretation of their mandate. I would suspect that a resolution of this type, although it may seem to be redundant, may be helpful, and I think we should support it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte and then Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, Mr. Chair.

There's a similar basin in another reference. I don't know if the IJC's jurisdiction includes only the Great Lakes; I think it's any water basin that goes within the boundary. But there's an issue with Devil's Lake, the Red River system, and Lake Winnipeg.

Devil's Lake doesn't empty into the Red River because of a dam they built, but since then they've created a sport fishery over there. The United States has been planting these different species of fish in this lake, but now it's been flooding. It's been reclaiming its old water basins and it's threatening to go into the Red River. If it goes into the Red River, it will hit Lake Winnipeg, and if it hits Lake Winnipeg...there's a huge freshwater fishery market there. There was a flood a few years ago that threatened that market, but if this Devil's Lake flood hits that.... That's a threat of invasive species, but it's not the Great Lakes. The term “Great Lakes” ends with the five Great Lakes on this eastern side. Lake Winnipeg is also a great lake. Lake Athabasca is a great lake.

Are we limited to only the Great Lakes in this, or would you look at a reference to other basins and threats to other species?

» (1725)

The Chair: The commission is limited to the Great Lakes, not because--

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, it isn't.

Mr. Bob Mills: No, that's not right.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think the Columbia River in B.C. and the Red River in Manitoba have interboundary jurisdictions.

The Chair: Well, then, would you like to expand the motion by way of amendment?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I just wanted to say that I would support this motion, and with further study I might encourage a return of another motion to bring in the other species.

The Chair: You might as well do it now, since the text is before you. Do you want to expand it beyond the Great Lakes basin?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To add other basins? Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It would have to be other basins within their jurisdiction.

The Chair: Yes, Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I also support the motion, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to relate my comments to the theme I've been discussing with the Transport Minister.

The minister has confirmed to us that Canada would be taking part in US studies into the possible expansion of the Seaway. As I stated earlier, several Environment Canada experts maintain that this project would result in an increase in invasive species. We have to look at the situation from this perspective. Therefore, in my view, the committee needs to reaffirm the position conveyed in this motion.

Today, the minister is telling us that Canada is involved in a project to which most Great Lakes experts are opposed. Ocean-going vessels must not be allowed on this waterway or to transit the Great Lakes. If we let them use the waterway, we run the risk of seeing more invasive species. Canada and the United States are investing considerable sums of money, as we know. The minister's announcement today flies in the face of what the Great Lakes scientific experts are telling us. Therefore, I think it's important to restate at this point in time the need for the IJC to study the question.

You may remember that earlier I asked the minister whether he planned to ask the IJC to consider, among other things, the impact of the project on invasive species. The minister wouldn't promise to hand the matter over to Mr. Gray. In my opinion, it's important to restate the role of the IJC in this whole matter.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, merci.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I see the problem with the IJC is that it seems unless they're asked specifically by the government to do something, they sit there, as the chairman says, and do nothing, or whatever. They have to be asked to do this and then they have to be asked to do that.

We ran into that with the Sumas River. It runs right across the border, and they wouldn't interfere because the government wouldn't ask them--neither government, U.S. or Canadian. The thing is, they need to have their mandate changed. Get the hell off your butt and get out and investigate problems as they exist across borders. Obviously, we can't do that, but this at least goes, to some extent, to help.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If it would be appropriate, Mr. Chair, I would ask Mr. Comartin to consider adding, after “the Great Lakes Basin”, “and any other water basins within their jurisdiction”.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That is acceptable to me as a friendly amendment.

The Chair: Fine. The amendment has been accepted by Mr. Comartin very gracefully. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

» (1730)

The Chair: Now we go to Mr. Mills's motion.

Mr. Bob Mills: My major point is that so many things have changed—this is such a dynamic study of renewable and sustainable development and so on—that it seems time we look at and try to bundle all of these together. It's so vital, if we really care about climate change, that we get alternatives.

I use as an example geothermal, which is really big in my area. I don't know if you know much about it. Wind is really big, and we need to know more about that. Then there's clean coal technology. In 2008, I know, TransAlta Utilities is going to have a plant up and running using clean coal with zero-CO₂ emissions. We need to know about that. If Environment doesn't do it, I don't know who would.

There are solar and biomass right here in Ontario. There are all kinds of biomass projects now being started up. We should know about those, and of course across the hall, as I said, they're promoting hydrogen. All of these should be in one bundle and I think would make a fascinating study for Environment to get into—and of course the uses, which we talked about, add to it. However, I think you get my idea of the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Can you also in your intervention, Mr. Reed, make reference to the Senate study on this subject, since you are familiar with the subject?

Mr. Julian Reed: The Senate study? I've only seen my own study. I don't know what—

Mr. Bob Mills: I hope to incorporate a lot of what—

Mr. Julian Reed: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this whole issue is very dynamic at the moment. With some of the information we're getting, for instance, from the Canadian Gas Association and others as to the future of supply of these things, and reading the latest British journal about North America being at a crossroads in terms of its energy future, it seems to me that what was considered 25 years ago the purview of the environmental fundamentalists is now coming into its own.

The fact is, there are quite a significant number of technologies that are not part of our scheme here—not in the minds of people—but are still there. Just to give you one example, I was in Florida two years ago to see hydrogen being made by arc and carbon underwater. This is a technology that is unknown here. Those things, I think, should be made familiar to Canadians. To do this kind of study should be, in my view, a vehicle to make them known.

With respect, I would like to enlarge a little bit on Mr. Mills's motion, if he would agree. I would stop the motion after “undertake a study of”, and then substitute “the state of renewable energy technologies and their current and potential uses in Canada”. What that does is broaden the motion so that we can look at more aspects than just uses.

The Chair: “The state of renewable energy technologies, and...”?

Mr. Julian Reed: Yes, “and their current and potential uses in Canada”.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I can live with that amendment. That sounds good.

The Chair: So long as it's understood that it doesn't include coal.

Mr. Bob Mills: Coal? Well, I—

The Chair: Coal is not a renewable.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm glad you mentioned that, Mr. Chair, because that's the point I wanted to make—not specifically about coal, but it's on the list.

I'd like to hear from Mr. Mills on that point, because I know he's done a lot of thinking on the use of clean-burning coal. He and I don't agree on it, but at least he's done a lot of thinking on it.

But I more specifically want to raise the issue of whether in fact we're going to look at nuclear and hydro.

» (1735)

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Joe Comartin: But it begs the question how we define renewable. I think both those industries would argue they're renewable energy industries.

I want to take the position that we shouldn't study those two, both because I don't think they are renewable and because we don't have time. That would be my position on that, but I would like to hear from Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess my answer would simply be yes, I was thinking of clean coal technology, but I agree it's not renewable. I'd be prepared to say it's going to be there whether we like it or not, because I don't believe the renewables are going to be able to fill the gap. Clean coal technology may be a transition to get to where we're going.

Mr. Julian Reed: My suggestion would be, why don't we treat those non-renewable potentials as a separate thing, away from the renewable energy? I don't care what people say about nuclear power; it's not renewable.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, I don't think we should get into nuclear.

Mr. Julian Reed: Nor is coal.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's a whole other issue.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, in my view, it's important to examine the use of renewable energy sources in Canada.

However, we can approach this question from several directions. Consider hydrogen. There is a tendency for people to believe that hydrogen represents the way of the future for Canada. In fact, $85 million has been allocated in the action plan tabled last August. However, I was surprised to read in the October issue of Science Magazine in an article by officials from the California Institute of Technology that, according to some research models, hydrogen use causes the temperature to fall as a result of cloud formation and produces chemical imbalances that adversely affect the ozone layer, particularly at the two poles.

Therefore, we need to examine the potential ramifications of hydrogen use. Some energy alternatives are not a panacea or the solution of the future. Hydrogen is one such example. Even today, the federal government continues to speak out as if it were the way of the future for Canada.

I believe it would be a good idea for our committee to look into the use of renewable or so-called green energy sources to assess their overall impact.

As I see it, hydrogen is an interesting example of a renewable energy source.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras is making an excellent point that we should keep in mind.

Also, let's keep in mind that in order to produce a respectable study, one year is a minimum. By the time you hear all the witnesses and put together the first draft, which then inevitably requires a second and a third—as we did with the pesticides report, which some of you will remember—a good 12 if not 14 months have passed. It is certainly desirable—there is no doubt about that—but let's keep in mind that it has to have credibility.

Mr. Reed has already put into that subject, on his own initiative, a tremendous amount of time. I'm sure he can confirm that this is not an easy undertaking.

Mr. Julian Reed: That's right.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, by the discussion going around the table I think there's no question but that there is a good interest in the subject matter. And you are also, I agree, quite right that to do it properly we have to understand that there is a serious commitment here.

I would recommend that we stand the motion, but in the interim, since we're having a week off, that the researcher undertake to ask the Library of Parliament or others about what's available now in terms of the subject matter the motion raises, to give us a little bit of an idea of the dimensions and the details that may help us make a firmer commitment to a timeframe. I'm not sure whether it would be a year or six months or eighteen months, but I think there's support for the issue. When we come back, maybe we could consider it, if that would be acceptable.

» (1740)

Mr. Bob Mills: I think basically that's acceptable. All of us know the potential timelines and how many weeks we might be here and what is going to happen in the next six months and so on. I'm being realistic about that. I just think it's good to get it before this committee and say we're going to do that. It may well be that the next committee actually carries it out because of the timelines that are involved. I think it's important that we emphasize that we're on top of it. Canadians want to know about this stuff. We're talking about change of mind and so on. Maybe this committee can play a part in that and do something useful.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo makes an excellent point, not only because we want to think it through on its own merits, but also because it will give us some time to think about the fact that if we were to go ahead with this, we would preclude in the next year or so, let's say, being able to do other studies, such as a study on the water condition, which was raised very passionately, I would say, a couple of times by Mr. Savoy and also by Mr. Tonks, if I remember correctly. If we take this route, then of course we can't do water, and if we do water, we can't do this. So we are opening a door but closing another. This little period for reflection is certainly going to be helpful.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, following up on Mr. Bigras's point with regard to an issues orientation of the implications of the best that science is bringing forward, whatever route this paper takes, eventually it should have an issues orientation to it. Yesterday we looked at the implications of hydrogen fuel cells, and the implication was that is leading to more nuclear technology. After natural gas and non-renewable resources have been used up, there is an end result that has an implication, and that is an issue we might not be aware of if it weren't raised in the context of an evaluation of technologies and so on. I'm not sure if I've been terribly clear there. But I think whatever form the paper takes, it should start to raise issues of policy implications.

The Chair: Thank you.

There is another aspect that needs to be taken into account during this reflection period; namely, that we have most likely an appointment with destiny, so to speak, because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will require a parliamentary review. That is supposed to start in 2005. When that is triggered, this committee will have to work on that and abandon other ventures. It may be that at the next meeting the researcher can give us some confirmation as to the precise dates for this.

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher): I'm not exactly sure, but as the particular section of the act came into power in March 2000 and it's a five-year time period, I would think that the CEPA review would have to start by the end of March 2005. The committee that gets it--it's actually open in the law as to which committee gets it--has one year to report. Assuming our committee would get it and assuming that we would get it on March 31, 2005, we would have to report one year later.

The Chair: Thank you very much. The motion is stood.

The meeting is adjourned.