ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 22, 1997

• 1545

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our examination of the harmonization initiative put forth by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Today we have a witness from British Columbia,

[English]

Dr. Kathryn Harrison, chair of the environmental studies program at UBC. We welcome you.

We will start. There is a threat of a vote, but we cannot wait until that happens, because it could take place anywhere between now and 6 p.m. We know you have a flight out and we're very anxious to hear you. By all means please proceed.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison (University of British Columbia): Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. As our chair has said, my name is Kathryn Harrison. I'm an associate professor of political science and also chair of the environmental studies program at the University of British Columbia.

I've been studying federal-provincial relations and the environment for several years now. I've written a book on the subject and a number of articles. I have with me copies of one of the articles. It may have been distributed. It's particularly about the CCME harmonization process, should any of the members wish to take a look at it.

As I'm sure members of this committee are keenly aware, federal and provincial governments alike face great challenges in pursuing sustainable development in the late 1990s. Public attention to environmental issues has declined since the early 1990s, though there is certainly still a deep well of latent public concern for the environment. Also, federal and provincial governments' efforts to curb their deficits have led to significant cuts to environment budgets by both orders of government. In that context it's admirable that federal and provincial governments are seeking ways to work together to make the most of their increasingly scarce resources.

However, having said that, I do have some serious reservations about the particular approach in the Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization and the subagreements that have been negotiated today. First I would like to offer an observation. It's that we've seen it all, or at least something very much like this, before. The events leading to the Canada-wide accord closely parallel developments two decades ago. In the mid-1970s the federal government signed bilateral harmonization agreements with seven provinces: all but Quebec, Newfoundland, and British Columbia. Although they were bilateral agreements, they were virtually identical in each province.

Like the new Canada-wide accord, the bilateral accords of the mid-1970s sought to clarify federal and provincial rules in order to reduce overlap and duplication. The federal government agreed to take the lead role in setting national standards in consultation with the provinces. The provinces in turn agreed to adhere to national standards in issuing permits or regulations for individual sources and to enforce both their own and the federal government standards. The federal government then agreed to leave enforcement to the provinces unless they failed to uphold national standards.

This brings me to my first point. To put it bluntly, neither the federal nor the provincial governments lived up to their ends of that bargain. The signatory provinces did not always incorporate national standards in their permits, nor did they effectively enforce federal or for that matter their own provincial standards. Despite widespread non-compliance with national standards, the federal government only rarely stepped in.

The experience with the first generation of accords indicates to me that single-window administration is by no means a panacea. This is particularly relevant as we embark on a second-generation accord which will renew our efforts to achieve single-window administration. I have no doubt all signatories to the original accords had good intentions. However, with declining public demand for environmental protection, they simply did not have the political or budgetary resources to meet their obligations under those accords. This can be especially problematic for a government that is withdrawing from an area of overlap. Having delegated key responsibilities to the provinces in the 1970s, Environment Canada simply did not have the resources to resume those responsibilities when the provinces failed to enforce national standards.

• 1550

I believe it is important to acknowledge just how similar our current circumstances are to that period in the middle to late 1970s, including waning public attention to the environment, the larger federal-provincial context, and declining environment budgets.

It is encouraging that the new Canada-wide accord and the associated subagreements do pay considerably more attention to accountability between governments and to the public than did the original accords. However, if anything, the new Canada-wide accord makes it more difficult for the federal government to step in if a province fails to fulfil its obligations, or for a province to do so if the federal government fails.

The problem is, the responsibility for developing an alternative action plan is assigned collectively to the concerned governments, which is not defined, rather than to the one or other government that may have clear constitutional jurisdiction.

My next two points concern the standards subagreement in particular, which in some important respects goes well beyond the original bilateral accords in the 1970s. As I've already indicated, the first-generation accords stated that the federal government was primarily responsible for developing national standards in consultation with the provincial governments. Under the new accord, Canada-wide standards are to be developed by consensus among federal, provincial, and in some cases territorial governments. Sections 6.8 and 6.9 of the standards subagreement indicate that it will normally be the responsibility of the provinces to implement those consensual Canada-wide standards.

Consensus is, of course, difficult to achieve. Imagine that the House of Commons had to make all of its decisions by consensus. I suspect you would get a lot less done. Similarly, my concern is that fewer Canada-wide standards will emerge from an consensual decision-making process, and that those standards that do emerge will be weaker by virtue of the fact that every province and the federal government, including those seeking the weakest standards, will have a veto over the outcome.

It is laudable that the Canada-wide accord expresses a commitment to the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians. However, the decision-making process established by the accord seems to me unlikely to deliver on that promise.

An aside here is that the Australian intergovernmental agreement on the environment, which in some important respects was a model for CCME's harmonization agreement, does not require decision making by consensus. I believe the decision rule there is two-thirds in most cases.

Implementation of consensual intergovernmental standards may also be problematic. Adherence to agreed-upon standards will depend on the good will of each jurisdiction, each province in most cases. At the risk of sounding mistrustful, I think it is important to reiterate that this approach didn't work last time. The provinces' good intentions to enforce national standards apparently evaporated with public attention to the environment and their ministry of environment budgets.

This leads me to my third and final concern, which is that we are likely to see a patchwork of approaches and discharge standards. The standards subagreement guarantees to each jurisdiction flexibility to adopt whatever approach it considers most appropriate to achieve an environmental quality goal. So a pulp mill in one province may face an enforceable regulation or permit while an identical mill in another province may face only an unenforceable guideline or code of conduct.

Moreover, it is by no means clear that the discharge limits contained in those regulations or guidelines will be the same. The primary focus of the standards subagreement is on developing uniform, Canada-wide standards for ambient environmental quality rather than uniform discharge or product standards. This distinction is not entirely semantic. Consistent environmental quality standards will inevitably lead to inconsistent industrial discharge standards, given very environmental conditions in different provinces.

This emphasis on uniform environmental quality standards represents a significant departure from federal and provincial governments' historical emphasis on the need to harmonize industrial discharge standards to preclude foreign shopping and so-called pollution havens.

• 1555

While I certainly would not expect any Canadian province to court investment at any cost to the environment as the term pollution haven implies, I do believe that in the absence of minimum national discharge standards it will be that much harder for individual jurisdictions to impose stringent standards unilaterally.

This point has been made by provincial ministers themselves on various occasions over the years, so I find the inattention to discharge standards in the subagreement both surprising and problematic.

To summarize then, I'm troubled by three aspects of the Canada-wide accord.

First, experience with the first-generation accords suggests that the move to one-window administration is not a panacea. Reporting between governments and to the public will be absolutely critical and will require that the federal government set aside resources for both monitoring of provincial adherence and potential intervention should a province fail.

Second, the consensual approach to setting Canada-wide standards inherent in the new accord raises concerns about the relative influence of the least aggressive provinces and about voluntary compliance by signatory governments.

Finally, I'm troubled by the focus on ambient as opposed to discharge standards, which I believe will further undermine the emergence of Canada-wide standards.

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify. I'll certainly be very happy to respond to any questions that you might have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Harrison. You have put the issue in an historical context, and that is extremely helpful to us. Not only that, but you have done an analysis that will provide the members of this committee with some food for thought.

I wonder if Mr. Casson would like to be the first questioner.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): In the last couple of days we've heard some concern that the whole point of harmonization was to deal with overlap and duplication. I know that you don't mention it here, and maybe you don't have background on that, but do you see any plus to the federal and provincial governments trying to work together on a streamlined process?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Yes. I think resources are limited, and in some areas it may be possible to work together more easily and with fewer restrictions on each decision-making authority. I think that inspection and enforcement, when CCME gets to that, would be promising candidates. Inspection is certainly one of the candidates that is indicated here.

In the area of environmental assessment, having federal and provincial governments work together in the form of joint assessments has been quite satisfactory in the past and probably has also resulted in improved results from those environmental assessments.

Sharing information is always a good idea, and there's certainly been a lot of emphasis on that within CCME for the last decade.

This harmonization accord does go a step beyond anything we've seen before in the redefinition of Canada-wide standards, and that's the aspect that's most troubling to me.

Mr. Rick Casson: You're suggesting here, then, that the federal government should still have the ultimate control. Is that what you're saying? They should set aside resources for the monitoring and they ultimately can run the show?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I think there is still a role to be played by the federal government in setting Canada-wide standards within its own jurisdiction. Obviously it can't do anything that it's not constitutionally allowed to do.

The federal government doesn't have to operate by consensus, and that can be a very important distinction in some cases in trying to establish discharge standards. Where, say, the mills or factories in one province are a lot dirtier than in another province and they're likely to have to spend a lot more money to comply with the more stringent standards, I would expect in many cases that province to be more reluctant and to argue for a more reasonable national standard. In a consensual decision-making process they're likely to exert a lot more influence, or at least they have the potential to exert a lot more influence.

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

• 1600

The Chairman: Who is next? Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Dr. Harrison, I realize I may be asking you hypothetical questions, but you know more about this than I do, so perhaps you can help me.

I'm thinking about where we go with the process. From what's on paper and from other witnesses we've heard, I don't have any problem with the rationale from industry that it wants to know the rules and wants them to be clear. We really can't argue with that.

I guess the flag goes up when we take it from the flip chart and try to put it into practice. I concur with the chairman that your historical perspective here is very useful because it's certainly a track record that can help us predict the future. But in terms of national standards, what do you see the criteria for those being? I'm new at this. Is it an economic decision how bad it will hurt if we do this? Is that the dialogue that's going on with the provinces?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I think that's part of it. I don't believe these are entirely economic decisions because if they were we wouldn't have any federal regulations. I think it's true that in the long run environmental sustainability and a healthy industry are compatible and require each other. But in the short run there can be some pretty significant costs that have to be imposed on existing facilities. In the short run there can be very big and I'm sure politically troubling costs, so I don't think it's just about that.

I've looked at the federal-provincial negotiations concerning the setting of Canada-wide standards more closely in the regulation of pulp and paper mills. There was a rough correspondence between the kinds of arguments jurisdictions made and the position of the industry within its jurisdiction.

In some respects a province might make very bold promises and once it got down to the detailed negotiations it would be looking for concessions here and concessions there because a particular mill just couldn't afford to make the kinds of changes that were required.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think the enforcement and inspection issues, if given the proper attention, could be resolved, but the key to the success of this is the standards.

Would it be fair to say that perhaps the approach could be some kind of identification that there will be inequities in terms of economic impact, depending on how high we set the bar for the certain provinces, recognize them and put resources in to try to minimize or make the impact of them equal? Because it's almost like economic discussions veiled in environmental discussions. I don't think that helps.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I'm certainly not an expert on NAFTA, but I suspect there could be real problems under NAFTA if you adopted Canada-wide environmental regulations and then subsidized facilities in some locations.

It might not be so easy to get agreement either in the sense that the reason some facilities in some jurisdictions don't have to spend as much is because those jurisdictions have already taken stronger steps. If I had a facility in one of those jurisdictions I'd be very resentful if comparable facilities next door were going to be subsidized, whether directly or indirectly. So it might not get you the consensus as it would at first appear.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Do you think we can get what we want through consensus, though, without some other kind of intervention?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I'm doubtful.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I think it will vary from issue to issue.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you.

I want to compliment you on the chapter from your book and get the title of your book, because I'd like to take a look at it as well. We were given chapter 9 and I thought it was extremely useful in setting historical context for those past couple of decades. Your testimony today has brought a few new things to light as well.

• 1605

In your brief you talked about the problems with one government stepping in when the other government wasn't doing its job. I'm wondering if in that initial agreement which was established there was a mechanism requiring that the federal government step in if the provinces weren't doing what they were supposed to do. Other than a statement saying that one level would step in if the other wasn't doing what it was supposed to do, was there anything that indicated a mechanism?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Not that I recall. I haven't read those accords again in the last little while. My recollection is that they were pretty general. There were statements that the federal government will not play a role in enforcement as long as the province is doing the job. There weren't specific dispute resolution mechanisms. I don't believe there were even deadlines, as there are in this case, where an alternative plan will be drawn up within six months in the event of failure. There certainly weren't the same kinds of detailed reporting mechanisms between signatory jurisdictions as there are—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about the issue outlined in some of the subagreements where it says that if one level of government is involved the other level of government shall not be involved? Was that kind of language reflected in these other accords?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I can't remember the exact language, but that was the overall intent of the accords: to try to rationalize federal and provincial roles. The idea was that when one is taking the lead the other will not play a role.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you have any idea why discharge standards would be left out of the subagreements in the accord?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I certainly don't have any knowledge of why, and I was quite surprised. I do think there was a previous attempt at this, a couple of years ago, in the form of the Environmental Management Framework and Agreement, which was a much more ambitious document. There were ten schedules. They were much more detailed. The idea was also different, in that it was a one size fits all approach. This document does allow for asymmetrical arrangements, so in in one province the federal government might take the lead in one area, in another it might be the province. So at least the door is left open for that. In the EMFA that was not the case.

CCME has talked about harmonization of standards for a number of years and it hasn't had a whole lot of success with it, despite the emphasis they have put on it. I think the other way this is different from the EMFA is it's a more pragmatic document: let's take things one step at a time and try it out. I think that is also a good idea, but maybe that pragmatism led the parties to say let's just not be too ambitious. That would be my guess.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In here you have suggested that if the provincial governments were in the field, whatever the field was, in order to make all this work the federal government may have to have monitoring systems in place in the provinces. Is this a reduction in costs for the federal government or an increase in costs, in relation to the system we have right now?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: There's at least a potential for a reduction of cost. Let's say the province is doing monitoring of individual sources and then preparing a summary report it passes on to Environment Canada's regional office every six months, or more often; whatever. In theory that could be less resource intensive on the part of the federal government, to look at one report which already summarizes reports from individual sources. Whether that happens in practice... In practice you may have only one person in a regional office doing it now and you might still need the same person in the future, so it may not make that big a difference.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Were you involved in the consultation process around the development of the most recent accord?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I was not on CCME's national harmonization advisory group. I did participate in consultations Environment Canada called itself. There was Environment Canada's own advisory group, and I participated in some of those. I had a baby in the middle, so I was an intermittent participant.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How did you find out about the most recent harmonization?

• 1610

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: This is an issue I've been studying for a number of years, so I tend to keep up on it. I was invited to the national consultations on the EMFA, in one case by CCME, and then by Environment Canada in the second round that produced the Canada-wide accord.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Has it been easy for you to get information?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: One never gets information on the actual horse-trading that may take place when the wording is being negotiated, but I didn't find it particularly problematic to actually get copies of the documents. In fact, it's a lot easier these days than it was a few years ago. CCME has a web page where all of the documents are posted as they become available.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Knutson, then Mr. Bigras, and then the chair unless someone else wants to jump in first. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thank you. I apologize for being late.

On page 2 you make reference to the fact that the earlier agreements didn't work when you say:

The signatory provinces did not always incorporate national standards in their permits, nor did they effectively enforce federal or, for that matter, their own provincial standards. And, despite widespread noncompliance with national standards, the federal government only rarely stepped in.

Kate, can you give some more serious examples of where it broke down?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Certainly.

The one industry I've looked at closely is the pulp and paper industry. In that case, the federal government established regulations in 1971. A couple of provinces had already moved before that, and other provinces moved independently after that.

I looked at levels of compliance in 1987, and the vast majority of mills across the country failed to comply with the federal government standards. I think about a third of the mills complied. I also looked at the actual individual permits that provinces had issued to those mills as of 1987. I looked at slightly over 90% of the individual permits for some 121 mills. Some 60% of permits did not actually meet the conditions of the federal regulations.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't really understand pulp and paper. How does a mill just simply not comply?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: In the federal regulations there were criteria for three forms: suspended solids, BOD, which is a measure of how much the pollutants use the oxygen that's present in the river—

Mr. Gar Knutson: But did they just decide not to do it?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Apparently. One of the criteria was a toxicity requirement, and in order to meet the toxicity requirement, almost all mills would have had to install something called secondary treatment. Most mills just didn't install it and nobody made them.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Mills constructed before 1971 that had secondary treatment were actually pretty hard to find.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And then what happened? Take us through the pulp and paper industry. I wasn't on the committee in 1993-94, but didn't they clean up their act?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: They did. The reason I stopped at 1987 was that everything changed after 1987. If we want to find a stable point, 1987 is a good point. In 1987 there was a discovery that dioxins were present in the discharges from pulp mills using chlorine in their bleaching process. Both the federal government and most provincial governments undertook regulatory reform. There was also tremendous consumer pressure brought to bear on the industry.

So in many respects I think the industry made voluntary commitments in that case to clean up its act in terms of dioxin discharges, even before the federal regulations were imposed. There was a combination of federal pressure, provincial pressure and consumer pressure, and there was also a very significant change of policy in terms of enforcement and compliance.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Was this federal government policy?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Both, although the change of policy in terms of the federal government was explicit in terms of CEPA. There's still no Fisheries Act enforcement and compliance policy.

The difference was that previously nobody really expected adherence to the law. The idea was that if a mill didn't comply, we would negotiate with them and try to set up a schedule. They would violate the schedule, and there would be a renegotiation and a change in that they said you have to obey.

• 1615

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right.

What about examples of where the federal government stepped in? What I'm trying to get at is, did the provinces challenge that? Did we have to go to court to maintain our right to step in? Are there any clear-cut examples?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: The dynamics in the pulp mill case were really interesting in that some provinces were promising provincial standards that were actually stricter than anything the federal government was promising: B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. Other provinces were waiting for the federal government to see what it would do.

When negotiations then returned to the CCME, what I found interesting was that even some of the provinces that had stuck their necks out and promised more stringent standards were pressuring the federal government to back them up. They wanted to have uniform standards at the level that they had established so they wouldn't be undercut by other jurisdictions.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I need some specifics, though.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Alberta, B.C. In B.C. the Social Credit government had promised an AOX—which is a measure of the chlorinated compounds in the effluent—standard of 1.5 kilograms per tonne. They had pressed the federal government to back them up on that, but the federal government took a position that it wasn't going to regulate AOX. Cabinet agreed to the 1.5, and the premier vetoed it and set the standard at 2.5.

It wasn't until a couple of years later, when there was a change of government... The New Democratic Party, which had taken very strong positions on the issue in opposition, changed that regulation. So that's one case where certainly the minister at the time and officials that I've interviewed in that province felt that the fact that the federal government did not back up the province's position in the form of a federal regulation hurt the province's position.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is there a link here to harmonization? Are we saying that the federal government didn't want to be leading the pack because they wanted to be in harmony with the provinces and therefore they didn't back up the lead province?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: One of the federal government's negotiators said to me, in so many words—I can't get the quote exactly—that some provinces were pressing the federal government to go further and other provinces were pressing them not to go so far. He said “Well we have to harmonize. Not all the provinces want those higher standards.” What's striking to me is that they harmonized at the lower level rather than at the higher level.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This was in what year?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: The early nineties. Actually, I have written up the details of the case and could make that available to you if you're interested.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you could send it to the clerk.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Certainly. I think I actually have a copy with me.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And send any others where you can just...

My sense is that behind all the words we have to see the examples. The wording of the harmonization agreement is wonderful. It talks about co-operation, about harmony, about working together, maximizing value. I'm fairly simple, but unless I can see case by case examples of where it screws up, it's difficult to...

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: It's very hard to find those examples, because even to study what went on in one jurisdiction is difficult and very time-consuming, especially because so many of the negotiations are not made public. I did extensive interviews in six provinces.

So I don't have other examples. I would look to the climate change case, though, and find someone who's expert on the negotiations there, because that's certainly a case where different provinces have taken very different positions and where it doesn't appear to me as if the federal government has sided with those seeking the most restrictive measures.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Are you familiar with CEPA v. Quebec Hydro?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: The Supreme Court case?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I've read it. I'm not a lawyer.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm just wondering. Apparently that's a case where the federal government intervened, notwithstanding the objections of the provincial government and a provincial utility. I just wondered whether a clear case can be made that if we sign this agreement, those types of interventions will be far more difficult, if possible at all.

• 1620

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I think that's one case. Environmental assessment may offer other examples where federal intervention—for instance, the case of the ALPAC pulp mill and the testimony of environment department officials. I think that made a big difference in the way in which that mill was viewed and in changing the way in which the problem was framed from “This is a clean mill” to “Sure, this is a relatively clean mill, but it's one of five or so on the Athabasca River”, which is not a very big river.

I haven't followed through on the Oldman dam or Rafferty-Alameda cases to see what the effect was in practice of having a second environmental assessment performed by the federal government, but I assume there would have been some positive impacts that emerged from those, as well as some negative ones.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The businesses would just tell us it cost a whole bunch of money and delayed everything, and tied up capital and workers.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I'm sure it cost a lot of money. It must have cost a lot of money to go to court so many times.

Apart from the details of those individual cases, one would have to look at what sort of demonstration effect they had on environmental assessments of dozens of other projects across the country. I think provincial governments also started revising and updating their own environmental assessment processes in the wake of the litigation over Rafferty-Alameda and Oldman dam.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Where you have a case where there's a lot of conflict, isn't the result perhaps to raise the standard of the assessments that come after?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Certainly I think it would raise the level of vigilance by provincial governments and by proponents of projects.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for enabling us to profit from their experience and expertise in this field.

My question will be relatively brief. You talked about cutbacks in the provinces' environment budgets. Moreover, several groups have talked to us about this.

Could you please tell us if you have examined—the word "examined" is better than "assessed"—the impact of this accord, given that budgets for monitoring, inspections and standards are not being transferred.

[English]

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: That's an interesting question. In the mid-1970s, when there was a devolution of various federal responsibilities to the provinces, there was no transfer of money. The Canada-Quebec agreement on pulp mill regulation set a precedent there, which I think is incorporated in the new agreement, that in some cases the federal government will compensate a province if it is playing a role in monitoring compliance with and enforcing federal standards as well.

That seems quite reasonable to me. The question is why there are economies of scale to be had by having one government do it. So perhaps the transfer is less than it would have to be if the federal government was completely doing the same role.

In practice, I really don't know. I'm not aware of what the actual numbers of people are and how it would play out in the individual regions and individual provinces.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Before we start the second round, I have a few questions from this end of the table. I'm very grateful to you for having drawn our attention—it had escaped me, at least—to the difference between ambient and discharge standards, and the importance they have in this regard.

You mentioned in your presentation today that provincial ministers themselves on various occasion made that point. Can you expand a little bit on that aspect historically?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Around 1970, when we had the first wave of public attention to the environment, both the federal minister and various provincial ministers were much more publicly outspoken about that. In fact, there were committee hearings into the constitution in the early 1970s at which Saskatchewan and perhaps Manitoba as well actually took stronger positions in calling for explicit federal authority to set national environmental standards than the federal government had proposed itself. Thereafter, when the environment fell from grace, as it were, in the mid-1970s, there was much less talk about environmental standards of any sort, national or otherwise.

• 1625

In the late 1980s there was again talk about the need to harmonize and provinces took different positions. Certainly the Province of Quebec has taken a fairly consistent position throughout this period that there is a need to harmonize but that those standards should be set by consensus among the 10 or 11 jurisdictions involved. Other provinces have been more receptive to the federal government doing that.

Certainly in the pulp mill case I was talking about I was told of actual battles—that was how they were described—that took place within CCME meetings, with ministers pressing the federal government for strict federal standards to back them up. Those types of statements tend not to be included in press releases, so I do not have documentation or minutes, but that is certainly what people who attended the meetings have related to me.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The infernal question we are facing here is this. Is this accord going to harmonize towards higher levels or towards lower levels? You have already referred to that. Do you see in the present accord, as it is drafted right now, the terminology needed for harmonizing towards higher levels?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: No. The actual words that say we will harmonize towards the highest levels of environmental quality sound very nice, but I do not see how anything in the procedures set in place in the accord itself are going to make that happen.

Consensus sounds very good. I mean, we all like to agree with each other, but I am not sure intergovernmental consensus is always consistent with the best interests of the environment.

The Chairman: Then you have failed to conclude that the way the accord is now written it will almost inevitably drive towards the lowest common denominator.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I probably would not go that far. Consensus creates downward pressure. I do think there is probably some impact from collegial discussions and ministers who have been working together for a few years, saying, oh, come on, you can't have all those concessions, so I would expect consensual standards to set the floor a little higher than if there were no national standards, no Canada-wide standards at all. But I do expect they would be weaker than the standards that would emerge from a two-thirds decision rule, as has been adopted in the Australian federation.

The Chairman: Will it lead to a level that is an improvement on the present one or not?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: It depends on what the federal government is willing to do in acting on its own jurisdiction.

The Chairman: Because...?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: In many areas the federal government has significant authority to set Canada-wide standards independently, without seeking consensus from every one of the provincial governments.

The Chairman: Yes, but then it would bypass the accord.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Right. I thought the question was comparing what would happen under the accord with in the absence of the accord; and what would happen in the absence of the accord would depend on how willing the federal government was to set standards.

The Chairman: Let's assume the accord is in place and it drives towards, as you put it, a lower standard because of pressure from the consensus process. What then will be the role of the federal government, if it wishes to insist on higher standards? Will it even have a role within the scope of the accord?

• 1630

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: It could say no. Any jurisdiction participating in a consensual decision-making process can say no.

My point is that having a veto is much more helpful to you if you want to defend the status quo. The federal government might not be in a position to say no and act on its own if it doesn't have the resources to do so because there have been assumptions made that the provinces are going to undertake these various activities. Saying no may leave us with nothing. So I would expect that the federal government would actually be in quite a weak position to do anything about it.

The Chairman: It could perhaps set standards or insist on higher standards if it comes to transboundary pollution issues, particularly air. But when it comes to water, unless it is interprovincial or international, it would be a lame duck.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Even with respect to the international authority of the federal government, I think the Canada-wide accord adopts a relatively restrictive view. It talks about the federal government having a role to play at international borders and in promoting agreed-upon Canada-wide standards in international fora. But that doesn't imply that there's any independent federal role to act as a negotiator in pursuing its own views as the Government of Canada in international fora.

The Chairman: Suppose the Americans were to say that in the Great Lakes they are willing to enforce more stringent standards of chlorine pollution. Under the accord, if Canada were to wish to agree to that type of new standard, would Canada have to obtain the commitment of Ontario and Manitoba?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I would think so. There would have to be agreement in the first place that this was a Canada-wide priority, and that might not occur. But if there was agreement that this was a Canada-wide priority, then I think the assumption would be that all provinces participating would get a say, not just Ontario and Manitoba.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This is the second round. Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Referring to chapter 9 from your book, where you had indicated on page 180 that the federal government was forced by judicial decisions to exercise its substantial environmental authority in the area of environmental assessment with the Rafferty-Alameda and Oldman dams, if we have a situation where the harmonization accord is signed, the way it is written, with the subagreements and things like that, do you see the federal government being in a position of being forced to act in certain situations through judicial decisions? How would that affect the accord?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I can't claim to be an expert on environmental assessment. I do some reading on it, but I imagine you're hearing from people who are more expert than I am on that.

My reading of the subagreement concerning environmental assessment is that in many respects it flies in the face of the Canada Environmental Assessment Act, and there is a commitment expressed in the overall framework accord that jurisdictions commit to amending their legislation as necessary to fulfil their obligations. I would think the federal government would have to amend CEAA if it pursued the environmental assessment subagreement to allow it to delegate authority to a lead jurisdiction, being a province, and also to ensure that individuals or groups couldn't take the federal government to court and force it to abrogate that subagreement.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We had the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency here, and he indicated to the committee that in his opinion there wouldn't have to be any changes made to CEAA.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Really.

• 1635

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Obviously there are different opinions on this. Presenters from CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and from CIELAP have indicated otherwise as well.

I read with interest the section in your chapter where you say that the federal government was forced by judicial decision to exercise its substantial environmental authority. It seems to me that if you have a subagreement, particularly in the area of environmental assessment, which is telling the federal government it has to stay out of things, you have a situation with the Environmental Assessment Act, which is a federal law that maybe requires it to act in a different way. It seems like it's going to have to be forced into acting through citizens' groups or challenges or whatever, or the act will have to be changed. Do you see any other way?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I'm intrigued by the comment that they're not inconsistent. I would certainly need to find out more.

So far, the implementation of CEAA has proceeded through joint federal-provincial assessments, and to my knowledge there hasn't been delegation of federal authority to perform an assessment to any other jurisdiction, which, by my reading, is certainly what this subagreement is calling for.

If there is some provision in there that would allow it, thus far Environment Canada hasn't been pursuing it. So it's certainly a change of direction.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please, followed by Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Do you think the agreements as you've read them are fixable, or should they just be scrapped?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I would try to fix minor parts of it. Trying to rationalize monitoring, inspection and enforcement activities is probably unavoidable, given the resource constraints. I do think there are some advantages to having independent monitoring and enforcement activities, because if one order of government isn't willing to act, the other can step in, but I don't know if we can really afford that advantage at the moment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's assume that resources become less constrained over the next five to ten years. There's some evidence to suggest that they are.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I'd be more inclined to scrap the whole thing.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Just scrap the whole thing.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Certainly the standards subagreement.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Pardon me? The standards subagreement?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Yes. My concerns about that agreement are pretty fundamental in terms of the overall approach.

Rationalization of inspection and monitoring activities may still make sense.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So if somebody is going in to monitor a plant, instead of monitoring for three things they might monitor for ten things.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Yes, and add a couple of things to the checklist. Increasingly, I think, both federal and provincial governments are aiming for electronic reporting of self-monitoring compliance data and having one order of government maintaining the database and occasionally sending reports to the other. That's not particularly troubling to me.

Mr. Gar Knutson: There's the issue of one assessment. That's what we're hearing from business. Are you saying we're moving to that anyway and we don't need this agreement to get there?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: There are two very different ways of doing one assessment if both the federal and provincial government are involved and have jurisdiction. One is to have them do it jointly and the other is to delegate performance of the assessment to one government, with or without standardization.

I think it's interesting that before this subagreement was actually released there had been a discussion paper that seemed to be proposing something quite different, in that there would be standardization of environmental assessment processes Canada-wide and then process substitution, so that the provincial process would be substituted for the federal but it wouldn't make much difference because they would be virtually identical after standardization.

The standardization seems to have been lost along the way. What we're left with is the process substitution whereby a provincial process will be substituted for the federal government process.

• 1640

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, that wasn't my question.

Businesses are making the point that they shouldn't be forced to go through these environmental assessments twice. They should only do them once. Making them go through two assessments is a waste of their resources, and a waste of the resources of two levels of government.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I can't think of any examples in recent years in which they have had to go through two.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The mining guys seem to suggest that they had lots of examples.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: In the wake of the Rafferty-Alameda decision and Oldman River Dam, previous understandings of who did what and who had to do what were all changed. There was a really messy period during which suddenly the federal government started doing all kinds of environmental assessments that it wouldn't have done before. I think there was probably a lot of duplication during that period, but if there's a lot going on now, I certainly haven't read about it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So you're saying that we're there anyway, that we don't need this.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: From the things I've read, yes, but I don't follow every environmental assessment across the country. It seems to be working pretty well even in Alberta, though, and that's certainly the place where there were significant tensions in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like to go back to a question raised by Mr. Caccia. Basically, he never got an answer.

The question dealt with the accords. Mr. Caccia talked about Lake Erie, in Ontario. We need to have an accord with the United States. The problem we are facing right now is that we need a consensus. This is what you appear to be telling us. Of course, awareness and issues at the regional level are not always what they are at the national level.

When you get right down to it, would it not be better to resolve this problem by allowing the provinces to make international accords, by giving them the power to reach agreements with the United States, for instance?

[English]

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: It's an interesting question. I don't know how willing the United States would be to negotiate with individual provinces. It might prefer to negotiate with the federal government, particularly if more than one province is involved in the waterway. If I were another country, I wouldn't want to have one agreement with Ontario, another agreement with Quebec, another agreement with Manitoba. I would want to see Canada get its act together.

As for where there needs to be consensus, there certainly needs to be consensus under this agreement. But under the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have to get the agreement of the provinces to act any more than provincial governments have to get an okay from the federal government before they act within their own areas of jurisdiction. In signing this accord, the federal government in particular is tying its own hands voluntarily in terms of not fully exercising its jurisdiction under the Constitution.

The Chairman: There is time for another round for those who are interested. There are no names on my list, so I will fill the vacuum for a second in case some people are ready for another intervention.

Dr. Harrison, you earlier said that the accord flies in the face of CEAA. Did I hear you correctly?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: You did, although—

The Chairman: Would you like to elaborate on that?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Again, I'm not speaking as a lawyer, so if there's room within CEAA to do something—a delegation of assessments to another jurisdiction—I'm not aware of it. I do think that in the environmental assessment field since the late 1980s the federal government has been moving to play a stronger role, first in response to litigation by environmental groups, and then in revising the environmental assessment review program guidelines order—the regulation that existed before CEAA. In my view, the federal government was asserting a much stronger role than it had ever played before.

• 1645

So in the sense that we've been moving toward more federal involvement in a larger number of assessments, I think this subagreement is a change in direction, to the extent that the federal government would be moving out and giving a leadership role to the provinces. Perhaps actual change to the wording of the law is not necessary because there's something in there now that would allow for that to occur.

The Chairman: So does it fly in the face of CEAA or not?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I can't answer as a lawyer about whether it flies legally. In terms of policy, I think it's a significant change in direction.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

It emerged in the hearings in the last couple of days that the accord provides for inspections but it does not provide for enforcement, which struck me as being very odd. How do you interpret that shortcoming?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: My understanding is that enforcement wasn't on the table yet because Environment Canada itself wasn't willing to proceed with harmonization of enforcement activities until it had a little more experience with how this was all working. I wouldn't want to speculate about what the reasons were.

The Chairman: How can you have an effective accord if it leaves out enforcement?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I think the assumption is that enforcement is still left to individual jurisdictions acting on their own, so once you get the data you can decide whether to act on it or not.

The Chairman: You have an agreement on inspection in the accord but you can't have an agreement on enforcement. How does that strike you?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: One would expect them to go hand in hand. Clearly a decision has been made to separate the two and delay enforcement. It's strange.

The Chairman: We were told it was a political decision.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I was told by Environment Canada it was a federal government decision not to pursue enforcement at this time. Why, I don't know. I can imagine problems emerging, depending on the frequency of reporting, where reports of non-compliance by a particular facility don't reach the federal government until x months later, when they may not be in a very good position to go out and collect legal samples.

In practice, if this subagreement on reporting is adopted it's possible the federal government will be in a weaker position to pursue enforcement, depending on how frequently the provinces are reporting the data they've collected and the compliance reports they've prepared.

The Chairman: Following Mr. Casson's first question on the subject of overlaps and duplication, we have been trying to obtain as much information as possible on where it occurs and possibly even a listing of overlaps and duplication, but without success. Are you in possession of any documentation on that subject?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: No. If we define overlap as areas where both levels of government have authority to act, there would be a few sectors like the pulp and paper industry and mining proponents who are proposing developments that are affected by environmental assessments where there's overlap. Whether there's actual duplication is another matter, and I don't have a list of those.

The Chairman: You are aware that one of the major reasons for the accord has been the claim that there is too much overlap and duplication. Do you have any comments?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: Yes. I haven't seen a lot of documentation of that from anybody else either.

The Chairman: Would you like to comment?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I suspect the concern is more with overlap than with actual duplication. Historically there have been some industrial sectors in Canada that simply oppose overlap. They want one level of government, often the provinces, to take charge on the issue. So it may be the very fact of the federal government's involvement from their perspective that's problematic, not actual duplication of reporting requirements.

• 1650

I would think they should be in a position to give you examples of actual duplication.

The Chairman: Maybe they claim that belongs to the realm of the myth.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I've certainly never seen substantiation of it.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Given the reality of the time lines we face and given—certainly in my case—the fact that I'm not sure how far down the mountain the snowball is presently, do you think that the change to two-thirds consensus on the standards is a significant enough change to pursue?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I think it's a very significant change. I don't think it would fly. I was frankly amazed that it did in Australia, and I've tried to find accounts of how they pulled that off.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Does that not speak volumes for the motivation of the people involved? Is that not the problem we face, that environment and economics both begin with E and people get confused?

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: I'm not privy to the participants' thought processes in this case, so I can't say what their motivations are. What I can say is that there were various previous initiatives. At one point in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment negotiated something called the statement on inter-jurisdictional cooperation, which is a predecessor to this with less teeth.

I did do a lot of interviews with people who participated in those negotiations, and to paraphrase what one of the participants from a lead province, in that case, told me, if a guy moves into your house and you can't get him out, at least make sure he stays in the basement.

I think some provinces were motivated by trying in the wake of the Crown Zellerbach decision, which did clarify federal jurisdiction and CEPA, to constrain the federal government unilateralism in the environmental field. That may not have been what was motivating all provinces. It certainly wouldn't have been what was motivating the federal government. And what's going on in this round I think is complicated by the very real budget cuts that both face.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Do you think that arguments for lower standards are being made because people want to set realistically enforceable standards as opposed to some pie in the sky standards, or are they making those arguments for lower standards or arguments for status quo in the face of evidence that would suggest higher standards might be beneficial for Canada because of the impact to their region economically if those were enforced? I'm trying to eliminate every other possibility.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: First of all, I don't think there's a lot of talk about it. I think there's surprisingly little talk about enforceable standards at all in here. I don't know if it's a guarantee in terms of legal wording, but there's an expression, a promise, that a lead jurisdiction will have tremendous flexibility in pursuing ambient environmental quality goals and that may include voluntary approaches or I assume even subsidies, not necessarily regulations.

I think there's been a general move away from enforceable standards by both the federal government and the provinces in the environmental field. I think in part that is in response to pressure by industry about competitiveness.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks.

The Chairman: We thank you very much. Your flight is in one hour and five minutes, so you have plenty of time. It was extremely helpful and informative for us to hear you. We envy you because you're flying back to Vancouver.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison: There's no snow there, either. Thanks very much for inviting me.

• 1655

The Chairman: Before adjourning, I have a couple of notices. Would you please make a note that as a result of an inquiry by the Government of China, five guests from China will be coming to Canada, and particularly to Ottawa. Two of them are parliamentarians and three are officials. They will meet with us the evenings of November 4 and 5. They want to know the Canadian experience in the management of resources, particularly water and forests.

I explained to the ambassador yesterday that it is a complex situation here in Canada, one that is quite different from that of China, which is not a federalist state. Nevertheless, our Chinese colleagues are coming. They are first visiting the U.S. and then they are coming here.

Would you make the supreme effort of entering in your schedule—if you can, of course—something to the effect that we will meet with them those two evenings to show our sense of hospitality and readiness to listen to them. Translation will be simultaneous. Arrangements will be made to that effect, so it will not be that dreary consecutive type of translation but in the same fashion as we have it in English and French.

I don't know whether the committee is willing to offer hospitality, perhaps to invite them for dinner, or not. I will ask you that question tomorrow so you can mull it over, unless you feel you want to decide on it today. That is one item for your consideration.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Do you know the timing of the visit?

The Chairman: It will be in the evening of November 4 and 5. We can set the time, certainly. We can determine the committee to be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. or 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Could we schedule them for one evening?

The Chairman: Well, they have come a long way, and they want to ask questions. It may well be that it could be exhausted in one evening, but we would leave it to them.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Are they going to have meetings with Environment Canada as well?

The Chairman: I don't know the entire schedule. I know they will also meet with provincial officials in some provinces, but I don't know whether they are seeing Environment Canada. I imagine so. I would hope so, but I haven't seen their schedule.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: If we look at the questions they raise, maybe the best source of expertise is here, but also somewhere else.

The Chairman: Definitely. I'm sure the ambassador of China will make that point with them as well in setting up their schedule. But they want to meet with elected officials also.

As to the schedule for next week, which you may want to plan better, there is something here prepared by Mr. Knowles. On Monday we will not be able to sit because we were not able to make an arrangement with aboriginal organizations, but it looks as if quite possibly we will meet Tuesday morning. Tuesday afternoon will be free. Then we will meet Wednesday afternoon and Thursday to provide guidance, so to speak, to provide input for the report.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): To consider the draft report.

The Chairman: Sorry, to consider the draft report.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Input well before then.

The Chairman: Yes.

Madam Hébert is quite correct here. She was saying that both she and Kristen Douglas would welcome your input, possibly by this Friday, on which are the points you feel ought to be explored and elaborated upon in the light of the hearings. As you know, there is quite a long list of points.

• 1700

They will have put together for us a draft draft for possibly Monday, Tuesday at the latest, in both languages. From that moment on, of course, we are to work on it, starting Wednesday, October 29, and then Thursday, October 30. If we are satisfied with that product, it will go to translation. If we are not, we'll have to decide at that time how to handle that report.

So we will leave it open-ended as to the conclusion. As you can see, it is a report that requires some reflection. It is a report of substance that we are actually in a position to produce if we give it sufficient time.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a suggestion. I would feel a lot more confident if at the end of hearing our evidence we had another go at the officials from the department. It's similar to when we're making amendments to the bill. We hear from them at the beginning and we also hear from them at the end of the process.

I'd like to be able to put the question specifically on Hydro-Québec and CEPA and what would happen under this new jurisdiction. I'd have a number of other better and, some might say, tougher questions—

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Sharper.

Mr. Gar Knutson: —yes, sharper questions—than we did at the first round, and we'll see how they do.

The Chairman: All right. We'll ask the clerk to find a suitable slot, which could mean sitting one evening.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fine.

The Chairman: Are there any other wishes?

Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Chairman, my colleague and I would like to start writing the report as soon as possible given the very tight deadlines. I was hoping that perhaps at the end of tomorrow's meeting we could at least get a sense from the members of the committee as to the basic elements of the report, whether we want to applaud the initiative or express concerns with the recommendation that they slow down, just to put us in the proper framework.

So I was hoping we might get some guidance from you. Certainly tomorrow and Friday will be for us invaluable days to get this draft report started.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The clerk informs me that tomorrow we do not have a limit as to the use of the room, so we could have a brainstorming session, if you like, once we've heard the witnesses and go around the table to invite input. Our researchers will take notes.

Is that agreeable? Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: What I have to say does not pertain to tomorrow, but to a comment made by my colleague about the need to bring back witnesses for further questioning. As for the need to zero in on one issue in particular, Hydro-Québec, I feel that the witnesses appeared and that we had enough time to ask them the required questions. We could just as well ask other witnesses to come back before the committee to question them again. However, we did have time to do this.

We have been asked to go back to a particular issue, Hydro- Québec. I don't see how we could ask the officials to appear again, not because they are going to be providing further clarification, but because we want to ask them questions on this particular issue. If we're going to do this, I would like to have other witnesses come back as well.

I do not know what the normal procedure is in this case.

The Chairman: When committee members want to complete their work, they regularly do more in-depth questioning. It is not unusual to ask officials from the federal department to appear again. We have several questions that we would like to ask them, and they do not relate only to Hydro-Québec.

Mr. Laliberte.

• 1705

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I'm just trying to get an update on the list of witnesses we are expecting next week. And as far as the researchers' time goes, will next week's presentations be part of the document in some context, or will they be an addendum?

The Chairman: That's a very good point. The researchers will make sure that the presentations will not be an addendum. The submissions will be integrated into the full report even if it is the beginning of the week. It will be treated as any other normal appearance.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that in the first initiative, the EMFA, a number of aboriginal concerns were expressed at workshops. I have the summary of the concerns expressed, and as far as I understand it, the concerns are still the same in relation to this agreement.

We could actually write a draft that would incorporate the concerns expressed in relation to the first initiative and make any necessary changes based on the evidence that we will hear on Tuesday. But certainly, yes, that evidence or their concerns would be incorporated into the draft and would accurately reflect the evidence given this time around. We can still start something for the purposes of the report.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to comment on the issue of having Environment Canada back again. If you decide to go ahead with this, I have nothing to say. If you are still thinking about what you are going to do, I would like to support the request made by my colleague and say, in a few words, why I feel that this would be a useful thing to do.

If we were to invite just any witness, such as an association, to appear a second time, I would find this cumbersome and time consuming. However, Environment Canada has special responsibilities with respect to the issue before us. There have been lengthy negotiations, discussions and all kinds of bargaining, and we have learned things since Environment Canada appeared before us on the first day.

We are not all equipped—and I am speaking about myself and perhaps for others as well—to ask the best questions on the first day and this is when the most crucial witnesses were appearing. We heard from representatives from Environment Canada on the first day and the members did not necessarily know what the various groups' position were at that time nor did we have all of the knowledge that we have gained over the past few days. Consequently, they could come back and spend an hour with us, or something like that. I do not think that my colleague had only this one issue in mind. He used this as an example, however I have other questions. I would like to verify some of the allegations that have been made here by various witnesses. It seems to me that these allegations should be corroborated or qualified.

This could be useful, because we need to base ourselves on the discussion and on the conclusions, and it is important to see whether or not any possibilities have been set aside and why. Discussions are still going on today, and we understand the subtler points that must be taken into account depending on which sub- agreement we're talking about. We can't put everything into the same bag; we have to understand the nuances. We could, therefore, put these questions to Environment Canada and then we can make our bed. I think that this would be useful, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: As Mr. Knutson said, we have had several opportunities. At the start, we called in the official from the Department of Environment and, at the end, because of the very nature of the work, we felt it was necessary to continue the discussion and ask further questions.

I can therefore assure you, Mr. Bigras, that this is not a new initiative or a new procedure. This is normal.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Okay.

The Chairman: We will try to have a meeting at a time that is suitable for the department and for us. It could be in the evening or it could be on Monday afternoon. It depends on when they are available. Monday would be better.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: This being said, I respect my colleague's position. I too will be prepared to ask Environment Canada more questions.

• 1710

I also respect Mr. Laliberte's position. For the past ten minutes or so, we appear to be wanting to rush things. I think that we need to take our time with this issue. We are dealing with a fundamental and important issue. We have to allow ourselves some time to reflect on the matter.

As far as I know, committees are supposed to be sitting on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays I work in my riding office. I see that there will be other meetings, one in particular to check the wording of the final report. A whole host of things may very well be taking place at the same time. I would like to know whether we could schedule committee meetings for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

The Chairman: This is a very important observation. It's true that we do try to avoid Mondays. We will try to do this. However, sometimes we will have no choice because we won't be able to meet on Thursday afternoon. Would you agree to sit on Monday evening?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: As I said, I have set Monday aside for my riding office.

The Chairman: We will try to meet on Tuesday evening. No, Tuesday evening is a disaster because of regional caucus meetings, but perhaps Wednesday evening. We have a problem to resolve.

Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I think perhaps we need to keep in mind that this is, to me, just a fixed date. This will not be the norm and will not impact on our usual days in our riding, but it is in preparation for a deadline that has been imposed.

That's my view, that we're attempting to do a lot in a short time. If that's not correct, then please correct me, but aren't we heading to a report and it's not something we'll do all the time? I sympathize.

The Chairman: Thank you; that's very helpful.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I am going to insist on this, because we did have a meeting on Monday. The officials from Environment Canada were here and you may have noted that I stood out by my absence. I wasn't able to put any questions to the officials that the gentleman wants to have back again for questioning.

It is precisely to avoid having to ask witnesses to come back that I am asking that we set a standard which we have moreover already discussed...

The Chairman: I would like to assure you that we will take your problem into account.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: All right.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other suggestions or input?

Mr. Gar Knutson: In terms of the general view that we not rush, that we take our time, I think all of us are in agreement with that.

The Chairman: You follow Mr. Bigras' suggestion.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We can't read people's minds, but there may be an opportunity for a real broad consensus on this issue.

The Chairman: Yes, and in that spirit, also, we could, if you'd like, have an occasion to meet not around the table like this but in a more convivial atmosphere, breaking some bread together. I would suggest that perhaps you look at your agenda and see whether you're free for lunch on Tuesday between noon and 2 p.m. in Room 601 or in Room 602. We will go Dutch treat.

• 1715

[Translation]

How do you said "Dutch treat" in French?

The Clerk: Everyone pays his share.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll leave it to the translators to find the right term.

We will go Dutch treat, and we will have an opportunity to get to know each other and to talk about environmental issues in a non-structured and official way.

If you feel that the date is too soon, let me know tomorrow and we can choose another Tuesday. Wednesday is not a good day for all sorts of other reasons, and Thursday there is too much rush.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: There may be a consensus, but, as far as I know, not all of the witnesses have been heard yet, and we still have questions we still want to ask. You yourself have questions. We cannot claim that we will have a consensus when in fact we have not yet heard from the representatives from the First Nations and the major witness, Environment Canada, as Mr. Charbonneau has just said, has not yet come back. So we have to be cautious. Let's not make hasty decisions. We have to have a flexible process.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I agree.

The Chairman: Is there a motion to adjourn?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you.