ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 23, 1997

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. We are operating under Standing Order 108(2), and are pursuing the harmonization initiative of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

We have three witnesses today—Juli Abouchar, Burkhard Mausberg, and Martha Kostuch. We welcome you, and would like to invite you to introduce yourselves and your organization, and to proceed with your presentations, possibly within a limit of ten minutes each, so as to provide ample time for questions and exchanges. Having said that, welcome again. The floor is yours.

Ms. Juli Abouchar (Executive Director, Conservation Council of New Brunswick): Good morning, Mr. Caccia, and committee. I'm Juli Abouchar, and I'm here representing the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

I've also been asked to give a few words on behalf of Shelley Bryant, who is with the Newfoundland Environmental Network, so I'll be making some references to what's happening in Newfoundland, although I wouldn't consider myself an expert on Newfoundland law.

I've provided some comments in a submission, which I will only be following loosely. I'll be focusing on a couple of aspects of it, because I'm sure you've heard a lot about the agreement from some of the environmental lawyers who spoke earlier in the hearings.

What I'll focus on is the loss of federal backstock concern, looking specifically at the effects of this agreement on environmental enforcement and environmental impact assessment. I'll leave the discussion of standards to others, although I'm happy to answer questions on anything in this submission.

• 0915

I'd like to start with an anecdote. In August we received a visit from the new federal Minister of the Environment, Ms. Stewart. Before meeting with her, we gathered in a conference call about eight people from different environmental groups in the province to discuss what issue we wanted to raise, what issues were of most importance. We did a brief go-round, and everyone said what issue was most important to them. The groups were very diverse. Some were very small, focused on one issue, such as pesticide reduction or nuclear power. Others were larger, province-wide groups that focused on more general issues, such as Bay of Fundy problems or big environmental issues in the province. Without exception, every person on the conference call said that their biggest concern was harmonization of environmental laws, and this agreement, which proposes to download powers from the federal government to the provinces. In the end we spent most of our time talking to the minister about harmonization, and then covered other issues secondarily.

This shows that this is a real concern to people in New Brunswick who are working on environmental issues. It's a concern because we don't want to lose the federal government's role in backstopping the provincial environmental enforcement and environmental impact assessment process.

The agreement, by making the province the sole inspector of environmental offences, effectively removes the ability for the federal government to backstop the level of provincial enforcement. Although the agreement doesn't specifically deal with enforcement, removing the federal government as an inspector effectively weakens if not eliminates the ability for the federal government to enforce the federal legislation.

This is a big problem for New Brunswick citizens, because we rely on calling, for instance, Department of Fisheries officers to come in and inspect where there's a fish habitat problem or where there's a deleterious substance. In many cases the province hasn't acted, and the option is there to call a federal officer.

Sometimes it's the New Brunswick government departments themselves that are causing the problem. There you can see sharply the ramifications of having to rely on another government department to call and to enforce and to monitor the activities of the department that is more focused on development.

As an example, recently the Department of Transport in New Brunswick was sandblasting a bridge without any protection of fish habitat. There were machines going through the river and the sandblasting debris was coming off into the river. The provincial Department of Environment didn't act on this. They didn't respond to calls, and the DFO ended up charging the Department of Transportation. It was only after the federal government laid charges that the Department of Transportation changed and cleaned up its act, so to speak. On that issue, what they did was they stopped having the machines go through the river.

We seriously question whether the New Brunswick Department of Environment has the capacity or the political will to enforce extra federal legislation. For example, the budget for the environmental planning, operations and enforcement branch of the New Brunswick Department of Environment has steadily decreased by a total of 28%, from $16 million in 1990-91 fiscal year to $12 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year.

This is even more of a problem in Newfoundland, where the budget reductions are even more severe. Since the 1994-95 fiscal year there has been a 60% reduction in the budget related to enforcement—the environmental management and control branch of the DOE—from $10 million to $3 million.

So we are seeing a reduction in the amount of money that's being spent on enforcement in the provincial departments in both New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Clearly this is going to be a problem if they are going to have to accept more responsibility for enforcement.

Now I'll talk a bit about environmental impact assessment. The proposed amendments will effectively kick the federal government out of environmental impact assessment within the provinces. This is because the federal government will only do EIA when a project is on federal lands. If a project has a federal permit and federal funds but is on provincial lands, the province will be the party in charge of the EIA. I'm sure you've heard previous speakers tell you this is contrary to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, so I won't go further into that, but I will take more questions later if you have them.

• 0920

For New Brunswickers this is really a problem. We're hampered in New Brunswick by an environmental impact assessment process, where there's no possibility of intervener funding, where there's no independent public hearing, where there's no requirement that the public be notified if a project is being screened for assessment. The public essentially doesn't know if a project is being screened or not. We only know once the government has made a decision to do an EIA or not to do an EIA.

We have a fairly weak EIA process, and it has been criticized by the New Brunswick environmental community, as has the Newfoundland environmental assessment process. One of the big problems in both of these provinces is the lack of independent experts. Simply because of the size of the province the lack of independent experts is a problem with a government that would like to focus on development opportunities.

Let me give you some examples of this being a real problem in New Brunswick. First is the aquaculture farming industry. This presents for New Brunswick a great opportunity to make up for jobs lost in the fish crisis. In the seventies the government put lots of money into aquaculture. They gave grants and subsidies and loans to people who wanted to get into aquaculture farming. This money came from ACOA; $34 million was given to New Brunswick to put into aquaculture. It also came from the federal government, as well as the coffers of the provincial government. Lots of money was being put into aquaculture.

No environmental impact assessment was done of the effects of a concentrated fish farming industry in the estuaries of the Bay of Fundy. A strong regulation wasn't passed; all that was development was a very weak provincial regulation. The regulation said nothing about sustainable management or sustainable operations of the aquaculture industry.

As a result, by the early nineties the sites had become heavily degraded such that only worms could live under the aquaculture sites in those areas. In addition, because the fish were so concentrated there were infections of sea lice. In order to address the sea lice problem, pesticides were introduced that hadn't ever been tested in water; they were pesticides used on land. They were quickly passed through the testing procedure for approval. Some were never approved but were used anyway because they were effective.

Another example of an EA not having been done is rock reharvesting. Again, it's another industry seen by the New Brunswick government as a way to make up for jobs lost with the fish collapse. What is proposed is large-scale removal of seaweed from rocks on the shore. This is removing a very essential link in the ecosystem, but no environmental impact assessment has been done, there has been no public consultation and as yet it is unregulated.

In Newfoundland there were similar pressures. In Newfoundland 20,000 workers lost their jobs, and there were similar pressures on the government to replace those jobs. They've made compromises to support mining and the pulp and paper industry. The environmental assessment branch in Newfoundland is under a lot of pressure right now. They're already under-resourced. You have in front of you, I think, a copy of the report prepared by Shelley Bryant, which indicates how under-resourced they are. In addition, there is no land-use planning policy in Newfoundland, and they've been asked—yes, it was tabled earlier. The environmental assessment harmonization implications for Newfoundland and Labrador—

The Chairman: We don't have it yet, but we will distribute it after the meeting.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Okay, I'll be happy to table it.

• 0925

The EA branch in Newfoundland recently, because of its pressures, had to take on a whole bunch of new, large projects: Voisey's Bay nickel; the Argentia smelter, together with 16 energy projects that go with the Argentia smelter; the Terra Nova oil field; and water export request proposals.

These are big projects, and the resources in the environmental assessment branch have not increased. The conclusion in the report you have is that there's no choice but for a shoddy EA to be done, given the resources available and the extra responsibilities already being downloaded onto the provincial department.

I could finish my submission, but you've got it written in front of you. I would like to take questions if you have some, so I'd like to open it now.

The Chairman: I agree, but we'll first complete the round of speakers. Then we'll be glad to do that. We'll also have an opportunity to distribute these by Shelley Bryant.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: If I have more time, I have just a few words in conclusion.

The conservation council will not support environmental harmonization in any guise if its effect is to download powers and responsibilities to the provinces.

There's been no evidence of duplication and overlap found yet, and what we're in fact seeing are gaps, areas where neither level is acting. An instance is aquaculture, rockweed harvesting, where the federal government appears to be removing itself from its fish habitat protection responsibilities.

We think over the last 20 years the provincial and federal governments have been working fairly well together to practise a form of dynamic federalism, which is enshrined in the Constitution. What has resulted is an intricate weave of duties and responsibilities, and we think cutting up this weave or removing these duties and responsibilities will hurt some provinces more than others.

New Brunswick, I think, will be very hard hit, as will Newfoundland. We have within the provinces both politically powerful industry and a jobs-oriented government. This combination is lethal to the environment. As a result, the provincial government is easily influenced to favour development over protection of the environment. This tends to exacerbate a few sectors, such as forestry, where the federal government's constitutional role is weak, and aquaculture, where the feds have already started to defer their responsibilities to the province.

We believe agree there's room for improvement in handling provincial-federal roles in environmental protection, but we think this can be attained through a better spirit of co-operation, a mechanism for better co-operation between the federal and the provincial government as well as within the levels of government, increased accountability, and acceptance of the public as a meaningful partner in environmental decision making.

The proposed accord and subagreements do not achieve these objectives. They do not encourage co-operation. In most cases they make co-operation even more difficult because they forbid the federal government to act.

The proposed arrangements also reduce the public's remedial options by removing the ability to call a federal inspector when there's a violation of federal laws.

In addition, the arrangements will dramatically reduce the role of the public in environmental standard setting, because it allows these Canada-wide standards to be established through closed-door negotiation within the CCME as a body that's not accountable to the citizens.

So we ask that the standing committee reject the proposed environmental harmonization accord and subagreements and recommend instead that a transparent process be established that will help to find solutions to the federal-provincial tensions and also encourage co-operation and public involvement. Those are my submissions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Mausberg.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg (Executive Director, Canadian Environmental Defence Fund): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have to apologize. I am a little bit sick, and because I flew in this morning my ear is a little plugged, so if you have any questions later on, perhaps you can speak up.

The Canadian Environmental Defence Fund is a national non-profit organization that works to ensure environmental justice in Canada. We do this by supporting citizens and citizens' groups in front of courts and tribunals.

Before I start my presentation, I guess I have to do a disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on your harmonization accord or an expert on jurisdictional issues. I am an environment advocate. I like to work on the ground in the processes that exist, legally, extra-legally and parliamentary, to further sustainable development in Canada.

• 0930

I would also like to start with two anecdotal stories, like Juli did.

As you know, if a substance is declared toxic under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the federal government has authority to regulate that toxic substance.

That authority was recently restated by the Supreme Court of Canada. I was involved in several processes that the federal government started to deal with these substances. That is, okay, they're toxic now, but what are we going to do about them?

This process has been referred to as the strategic options process, or SOP for short. It's a multi-stakeholder round table at which various levels of government, industry and NGOs sit to figure out what we are going to do about lead, about toxic forms of nickel, about hexachlorabenzine and so on.

I attended several of these SOPs and several are still going on. One in particular I wanted to mention in this anecdotal story is the base metals sector. Base metals include things such as nickel and copper. It also includes some of the largest corporations in Canada, such as Inco and Falconbridge.

This was a very intense negotiation. Part of the reason it was very intense is that all of a sudden we were tabled a recommendation that included direct language from the harmonization accord.

This was a year ago, Mr. Chair, a year ago. The report is still not signed, and various levels of government—obviously the provincial government and one industry sector—included language, such as Canada-wide standards, directly from the accord.

The second anecdotal story is that in 1988 then Alberta Premier Don Getty announced a major forestry expansion for northern Alberta. With new technology you could all of a sudden use hardwoods such as aspen to pulp. Previously that wasn't quite possible. We were relying on softwoods.

The Chairman: You mean softwood.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: Yes. According to the premier, Mr. Getty, some $3.4 billion of private money was being spent primarily in the expansion of three pulp mills and the building of four new ones.

In the spring of 1989—barely a year after it was announced—the environmental and construction approvals were given to all the mills, with one exception. That was the Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries' plant, which had to undergo the federal EA—federal environmental assessment—because it dealt with cross-border issues; that is to say, the mill discharged into the Peace River, which goes into another province.

Once the EA review was under way, Environment Canada called the company's assessment unacceptable and recommended more studies.

That just infuriated the newly appointed environment minister of Alberta. He was on the phone the next day with then Environment Minister Lucien Bouchard and lobbied to get the necessary approvals; he asked how his department dared to say it was an unacceptable environmental assessment. But Mr. Bouchard agreed with his scientists and publicly said yes, that they needed more studies and also a public hearing on it.

Then all of a sudden, by late 1989 the Alberta environment department itself found about 230 deficiencies with the company's environmental assessment and held public hearings.

By the way, the newly appointed environment minister in Alberta was Ralph Klein.

I guess those anecdotal stories tell me two things. The first thing is that there has been almost an overzealous effort by various interests to have this accord part of public policy debate, such as the SOPs. The recommendations from the strategic options process go directly to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of the Environment, and they would have gone up the ladder if we hadn't fought against it even without the accord having been signed. So there are some folks out there who overzealously try to undermine federal authority over the environment.

I guess the other lesson for me, with the Alberta example, is that having a federal environmental assessment is a good thing. That mill would have been built without the 231 deficiencies being identified if it hadn't been for the federal government saying this mill has some problems.

• 0935

Going directly to the accord as it relates to the environmental assessment subagreement, I want to raise three broad points. I don't want to go sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph. I don't think we have time for this. I'm not a lawyer who can pick apart words. I want to make three broad points on environmental assessment.

First, how are we going to avoid litigation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? The subagreement for environmental assessment makes a whole bunch of changes to the way the current federal assessment process works. How are you going to avoid being sued in Federal Court if the federal government does not follow the requirements of CEAA? Does it mean you have to make amendments to CEAA if this accord is going to be passed? Those necessary amendments are going to take a long time. As you know, the political process takes time to work these things out.

I hear that there's a need for certainty in doing new developments and environmental assessment, and that there's a need for clear roles and responsibilities. But signing the accord and the subagreement may give you more uncertainty. The federal government could be in court more often than it is currently because it's not following the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Just read that as a question—how are you going to avoid litigation?

The second broad point on the accord is how the subagreement actually defines environmental assessment. Environmental assessment has undergone a tremendous growing up in the last 25 to 30 years. Lots of academics have thought about it and so on and have developed the concept. In a nutshell, environmental assessment is a planning tool. There's nothing else. It's a planning tool. It's being able to look at a development and ask how this development can proceed without environmental effects. How can this development proceed without significant social effects? Maybe this development shouldn't proceed. It's a planning tool to decide how you're going to do something. It is not just a report of an EIS—an environmental impact statement—and then just pass the thing. It's a planning tool.

When I look at the definition for environmental assessment under the accord, it is not a recognized technical or legal definition of environmental assessment. It's a completely new definition.

The third broad point concerns your role as a committee. Within the next two or three years this committee will most likely have the obligation to review the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There's a clause in CEAA that says “a committee of the House shall review the efficacy and efficiency of the act”. I gather it may be similar to the five-year CEPA review this committee undertook.

If this accord is going to be signed, you're already going to give away things in terms of the CEAA authority. How are you going to review that efficacy? The act is barely three years off the books and has been been employed for barely three years. How are you going to do a five-year review when for almost half the time you operated under some obscure accord of harmonization? And why would you give that away when you haven't had a chance to adequately study the act and how it has worked?

The benefit of a committee such as this is that you have research staff and you have presenters coming here. You have some time and you have a bit of resources to travel the country. You can think this stuff through. In terms of the EA sub-accord, I would be disappointed being limited by what the accord says in that review, rather than what the act says.

I hope I have a couple more minutes to talk about one particular example—

The Chairman: You have used your ten minutes, but try to summarize it.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: I'll try to summarize one particular aspect, and that is Voisey's Bay. I gather you have heard a bit about Voisey's Bay and the environmental assessment there. I'll do it really quickly.

There are five aspects to Voisey's Bay development. You need to build the infrastructure, sewage systems, airfields and roads. You need to build the mine and mill. You need to build shipping facilities for the ore concentrate to go from Labrador to the smelter, which means you need to build a smelter and a refinery. Finally, you need the power sources.

• 0940

What is currently happening in the environmental assessment is that you have a harmonized EA. The infrastructure, mine, mill and shipping aspects, the whole assessment of that is governed by a four-party memorandum of understanding. The four parties are the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal government, the Innu Nation, and the Labrador Inuit Association. They sat down and negotiated an agreement on how they can do this assessment.

The second part, the smelter and refinery, is reviewed by comprehensive study. It is a separate process with federal-provincial co-operation. Unfortunately, the third part, the power sources, which you need for that smelter and which are tremendously high, are not being reviewed.

So what I see wrong with Voisey's Bay is not federal-provincial relationships or federal-provincial duplication. There has been a clear working together and a written document on how the federal government, provincial government, and aboriginal people can work together. What I do see wrong with that assessment is that you are splitting the whole project up into little pieces—i.e., one process for the mine and mill and one process for the smelter and refinery, but no process for the power sources. So it's not a question of how governmental powers are divided but how the actual project has been divided.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your patience in my deliberations, I have some conclusions.

I have yet to see a need for the harmonization accord as it pertains to environmental assessments. There have been many joint federal-provincial environmental assessments. It is not new. In virtually every territory and region of the country there have been joint federal-provincial environmental assessments. Often I did not like what they said, as with the Cheviot Mine on the border of Alberta and B.C. It was a joint provincial panel that said go ahead. I didn't like what was said at the end, but it was a joint provincial panel that worked very well. So examples of federal-provincial interaction exist.

Apparently the harmonization accord has become part of the federal government's unity agenda. I have no proof of that—it is hearsay—but how is it a unity agenda when the standards that apply to someone in Quebec are different from those for someone in St. John's or Toronto or Vancouver? To me, a unity agenda means trying to make sure environmental standards are the same for all Canadians.

In conclusion, I hope the committee can recommend that this accord not be signed, and that if there is to be a harmonization accord, the need for that should be defined and that there is a problem demonstrated. With respect to EA, I hope there won't be a sub-accord because the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already has very clear provisions that say how you interact with the provinces on environmental assessment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mausberg.

Ms. Kostuch.

Ms. Martha Kostuch (Vice-President, Friends of the Oldman River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am vice-president of the Friends of the Oldman River and I chair the Canadian Environmental Network harmonization working group. I was a member of the national advisory group on harmonization to the CCME, a member of the minister's advisory group on harmonization, and a member of the CCME environmental assessment focus group. I have a fair bit of experience with environmental assessment on the ground.

This will be a very grassroots presentation. I too am not a lawyer; I am a veterinarian. So this will be very grassroots. I know you've heard a lot about the accord itself and what is wrong with it, but I want to give you some examples.

I want to start with a couple of gifts. One is a gift of water from the North Saskatchewan River. The North Saskatchewan River—this water was taken right near Rocky Mountain House—arises at the British Columbia-Alberta border, at the great divide on the Athabasca ice fields. It flows through Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba and into Hudson Bay, which then becomes part of the Atlantic Ocean. This water is truly of national interest.

• 0945

This is a bottle of air taken from outside my home near Rocky Mountain House. This air comes over the Pacific Ocean, across British Columbia, through the mountains, into Alberta and then flows east into Saskatchewan, Manitoba and across eastern and northern Canada.

A voice: Will you pass those around?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: I'm going to give them to you. They're a gift for you. They are truly of national interest.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The packaging is a national...

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Hopefully they won't be declared hazardous products or anything like that. I thought about that. I might have to take them back.

I'd like to give you some examples of environmental issues the federal government should be involved in or concerned about.

Sulphur dioxide emissions in Alberta: 80% of our 600,000 tonnes per year of sulphur dioxide emissions are exported from the province, mostly to the east and to the north.

Carbon dioxide emissions from Alberta: Alberta is the reason Canada will not meet its international obligations to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. Alberta accounts for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. If it wasn't for Alberta, we would be able to meet our international agreements.

Ty Lund, the Minister of the Environment in Alberta, in yesterday's paper said they will not accept any legally binding agreements on carbon dioxide emissions. If Canada does it, they'll have to do it alone. They'll have to find their own way of implementing any international agreements controlling carbon dioxide emissions. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board recently said, in a hearing in which I was involved, that they do not have a mandate to control carbon dioxide emissions.

Oil sands developments: There are 18 new oil sands developments or expansions of existing oil sands developments in Alberta. The federal government has recognized the need to do a cumulative regional assessment, but instead of the federal minister calling an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which she has every right to do when there are transboundary concerns... Instead we have Environment Canada, in a recently released report, trying to convince the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board to hold a public hearing on the cumulative environmental effects of the oil sands. Why? Why isn't the federal government, which has every legal right, calling for an environmental assessment?

Many of the impacts of the oil sands are not going to be on Alberta. It's not within the Alberta government or UB mandate to assess the environmental impacts of the oil sands development on Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That's the federal government's responsibility, not Alberta's. It's not the Alberta government's responsibility—in fact the UB has stated this—to assess the global implications of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Again, that's the federal government's responsibility. Where's the federal government? Why isn't it doing its job? And why would they possibly suggest we turn this responsibility over to the province, whose mandate it is not?

The Fish Lake Project in British Columbia is a mining project that was renamed the Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project. They were going to fill in the lake. I guess they felt it was too federal to fill in a lake called Fish Lake, so they changed it to the Prosperity Gold project.

Documents obtained through the Access to Information Act say:

The technical fisheries staff on both sides have already made their views known—they consider the project unacceptable.

If it appears that DFO has the ability to influence the economic development agenda in B.C., welcome to the real world. This is the reason we were proposing, through CCME harmonzation, that the jurisdiction that controls the land base should make the decision about a project's overall acceptability.

They want to kick the feds out because they want to be able to make the decisions without federal government interference.

I spent Thanksgiving Day inspecting a problem that someone had reported to me. I get lots of problems reported to me. So I went out and inspected a project. I'm going to pass these pictures around. This project is a gravel mining operation on the North Saskatchewan River. It does not have any federal approvals or provincial approvals. It's breaking federal laws and provincial laws. It's just west of Alder Flats, which is about 70 kilometres northwest of Rocky Mountain House in Alberta. If you want to know where Rocky is, I can tell you that too.

• 0950

Alberta Environmental Protection is aware of this project. They know about it but have not taken any action on it. We believe they've been ordered not to take any action on it for political reasons.

We don't have inspectors fighting over who's inspecting. We don't have federal and provincial inspectors out there fighting over who's going to get the right to inspect. I went out there on Thanksgiving Day.

We have a provincial department of environment that knows this is going on, but which has been told, for political reasons, not to do anything about it. They're taking gravel right out of the North Saskatchewan River. There are enormous impacts on fisheries habitat. This is just upstream from an important spawning area. So I'm going to pass these pictures around.

We will be taking action. We ourselves will be taking enforcement action. Where's the duplication? Where's the overlap? Where are the governments in this?

Funding and manpower cuts: There's been a 33% reduction in funding in the Alberta department of environmental protection from 1992-93 to 1997-98. A 7% additional budget cut is planned by the year 1999-2000, with similar staff reductions. They don't have the staff. They're counting on us to do the inspection because they don't have the people. We're doing the inspection and we're getting the reports. We're going out and checking these things out and we're doing the enforcement.

On deregulation, these statements are from Alberta Environmental Protection's three-year business plan: consolidating some acts and legislation plus streamlining of regulatory processes with the intent to deregulate, where possible, in support of the provincial development strategy. This is in Alberta Environmental Protection's business plan. We're not going to deregulate in support of environmental protection; we're going to deregulate in support of the provincial development strategy.

Privatizing and outsourcing of activities, changing roles and relationships with the federal government through an environmental management accord and harmonizing legislative processes and standards to eliminate constraints and costs to industry... We're not talking about better protection in the environment; we're talking about kicking the feds out of environmental protection so we can eliminate constraints and costs to industry, so we can deregulate and encourage the provincial development strategy. That's what we're talking about.

This isn't a harmonization accord, it's a devolution accord. That's what it is. It's to devolve federal responsibility to the provinces. It will reduce protection of the environment, not improve environmental protection.

We recommend to the federal government that they not sign this, that the committee recommend or initiate a meaningful study of the essential needs and critical gaps in Canada's environmental protection system, and that the committee provide a clear statement of its vision of the federal government's role in the protection of Canada's environment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Kostuch.

Mr. Gilmour, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Pratt, Madam Carroll and Mr. Herron. Mr. Gilmour, please.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): This was a most enlightening exposition by the three of you, and I apologize for being late. The reality is we are short of money both federally and provincially, but what I find interesting is that it's all over the map. In some places you're saying there are no assessments, that both the feds and the provinces have decided not to go anywhere.

• 0955

How do we get a decent assessment done without doing two separate ones, federal and provincial? There doesn't seem to be any set of rules or any standard guidelines or approaches that say, okay, at a minimum this will be done. Perhaps I'm missing it. How do we cover the bases, yet in a cost-effective manner without duplication?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: We have the process in place now. We have joint panels. We have joint processes. That exists right now. We're not asking for duplication. We don't want separate processes. Where both levels of government have responsibility there is a process in place, usually through bilateral accords, where we can have joint processes. There is no problem.

The Cheviot mine is a good example of where we had a joint process. Under the Alberta-Canada accord on environmental assessment, the panel was appointed jointly, and the process had to meet both federal and provincial environmental assessment rules. It wasn't a question of following the Alberta process or following the federal process. It was a question of following a joint process that met the obligations of both parties.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Can I add to that? The problem with the present process is that a lot of time is wasted and there are a lot of inefficiencies. They have to do with co-operation between the levels of government, with timely decision-making, with levels of government taking responsibility for making a decision whether to trigger the act or not.

What happens—and this is a problem for environmentalists and for industry—is that we're not sure until the last minute whether a process is going to be triggered under the federal EA, so a lot of time is wasted and a lot of backtracking and repeating has to happen.

If the federal agency, CCEA, were stronger, and if it could enforce and encourage the responsible authorities to make their decisions in a timely manner and get the process going in a predictable manner, then the resources would be used more efficiently.

The other aspect is participation of the public. The public has a very strong role to play—especially where there's going to be one enforcement process—in testing the evidence. With the federal process right now, we have intervener funding available, and the public can play that strong role. With the provincial processes there isn't that ability.

So I'm supporting what Martha said—that we do have that process in place. What needs to happen is better co-ordination between the levels, and actually a stronger rather than weaker federal role. We need more respect paid to the agency, CEAA, by the different levels of government.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If the process is there, then what's falling through the cracks? You mentioned some of them. Voisey's Bay was a good example, where they've split up the pie. In your mind, will the job get done adequately if the process is there? I'm trying to get a grasp on where it's falling apart. So far, you have said the process is there, and I'm having difficulty finding the weak areas.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: If I may, there's one general comment I want to make. You started your question by saying there was an across-the-board reduction of resources towards the environment, whether it's New Brunswick, Alberta, Ontario, or the federal government. I hope that trend discontinues.

When you look, for example, at media coverage of environmental issues in the last six to eight months, they have tremendously increased compared to what we had earlier in the 1990s. Hopefully with that public pressure, where even the Prime Minister now has to respond on global climate change issues, and with that extensive coverage of environmental issues, we will have more resources dedicated to the environment. Obviously the role of this committee may become more important, too. That is the hope—it's nothing else, no more.

I guess in answer to your question about where the process is failing, first of all, I'm not quite sure if it's failing per se. Certainly there are examples where no assessments are being done. I guess we have to look at that particular case, at why that process is failing. In her case, Martha thought there was no political will to undergo an environmental assessment.

• 1000

In terms of Voisey's Bay, where is the process failing? Well, I guess we have to define what failure means, and what failure is. If failure means that we are assessing a project into small pieces, rather than following the rule of the CEAA, which says one project, one assessment, then I guess again that it's a political failure on behalf of the Minister of the Environment. The minister has the authority to say yes, we'll do one assessment for one project.

It may also be the failure of the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company. The company could have seen this project as one, done one assessment, and proposed one assessment with the mine, the mill, the smelter, the refinery and the power sources all being assessed together.

The Chairman: Thank you. Next we have Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Bigras.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you. Before I ask my questions, I just had something to bring to the committee's attention. I wanted to wait until most of the members were assembled.

I've just received word that when Minister Stewart spoke with her provincial counterparts yesterday...the signing of the November 4 accord is going to be postponed until after Kyoto.

She had a discussion with her provincial counterparts about climate change, as well as the accord, and there was an acknowledgement that because climate change is of such national significance and such a pressing issue, they would like to focus on that.

All the provinces have agreed to this. They felt it would be better to have the time spent on dealing with the climate change issue. Then, because the accord is such a complex and important issue for Canadians as well, it will be dealt with after Kyoto.

Having said that, I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): On a point of order, maybe we can add the implications of that amount to the agenda at the end of this meeting.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That is for our work schedule, Mr. Chair.

We had a witness yesterday who gave us a very useful historical overview of federal-provincial relations, and she had given us a chapter from one of her books. I'm referring to Kathryn Harrison. The chapter's title is “Prospects for Intergovernmental Harmonization in Environmental Policy”.

Essentially, and in very general terms—and I hope I'm not misquoting her—she put forward the hypothesis that as the public concern about the environment increases, the federal and provincial levels of government have more interest, and their desire to offload and harmonize is less interesting to them.

Having said that, I understand there was a period in the 1970s where they had entered into agreements that on the surface appeared to be fairly similar to this particular accord, but through practice they found out that it wasn't very effective. One level of government didn't step in when the other wasn't doing what it was supposed to do, even though it had taken responsibility.

I'm wondering if any of the panellists have had experience with this, or if they have some anecdotes, or whatever, they'd like to share with the committee.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Well, Oldman Dam has to be the big one, and I guess we're partly to blame. I'm partly to blame for this accord. Our court case that went up to the Supreme Court decided that the federal government did have some jurisdictional responsibility, even in Alberta. That led largely to this accord being formed.

After the Oldman Dam case the Alberta government said this isn't acceptable, the federal government is sticking their nose into the provincial government's business, and so we have to find a way to kick them out. So Alberta took the lead on the harmonization agreement.

• 1005

There's a case where the Alberta government itself was the proponent. The Alberta government built the Oldman Dam, had done what they called an environmental impact assessment of the proposal, and did not meet even their own provincial environmental assessment guidelines. Certainly the federal government was not knocking at the door, shall we say, to come in and do the job. We forced them in through the courts.

And while the Oldman River Dam was built, the federal environmental assessment panel recommended, as their first recommendation, that it not be built, but also made 22 other recommendations that are very important, and are currently in some stage of being implemented.

The dam should never have been built, and would never have been built, if the federal government had been involved when they should have been involved. But even with the dam having been built, I don't have any regrets about involving the federal government in doing the environmental assessment because it has been beneficial. Probably mostly it's been beneficial for other things, though.

We will likely never again have another huge dam in Alberta, and maybe never in Canada, certainly not without a proper environmental assessment.

There are many examples of that kind. We currently have Sunpine Forest Products before the court to get a proper federal environmental assessment done. Again, the Alberta government could have called an environmental assessment. But in many cases, the provincial EA processes are very weak. They're discretionary, not mandatory.

They could have called an EIA, decided not to do so, because we don't want to set a precedent in calling an EIA on a logging road. So we turned to the federal government and said you must call an environmental assessment. We currently have that case before the courts as well.

There are many examples. The North Saskatchewan River is an example. Pictures are being passed around. Again, this is not an environmental assessment example, but rather an inspection and enforcement example where both governments have jurisdiction, and neither government is doing anything.

With respect to the Tay River, I recently was an agent on a private prosecution. Alberta Fish and Wildlife has said they are not going to provide any information to the federal government. They won't assist in any inspections or enforcement activity unless they are also given the power to give authorizations under the Fisheries Act. So they said “We're not going to do your dirty work. You give us all the power, and then we'll enforce and inspect. Don't give us the power, and we're not even going to give you any information.”

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, Alberta is not enforcing the Fisheries Act?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Alberta is not enforcing the Fisheries Act.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So they can join the line-up with Ontario as well.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Well, Alberta has been in that line-up for a long time, but now they're officially... The federal Department of Justice put a request to Fish and Wildlife to provide information on a project Fish and Wildlife was well aware of, the Tay River project. Fish and Wildlife's response was “We are not going to provide any information to the federal government. We're not going to co-operate with them. If you want us to do your dirty work—that is, your inspection or enforcement—you must also give us all authority that goes with that, including the authority to give approvals or authorizations under the Fisheries Act.” That's what they said.

So, again, we're the ones who are doing the enforcement at this point. The federal justice department is still considering whether or not they're going to step in. But that's the answer they got from Fish and Wildlife.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps we could have a small discussion on standards, and why you feel the agreement is not going to be useful for national standard setting.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Sure. I had some of that in my submission, but we could enlarge on that. I also have a few comments to make about the agreements. Shall I just add those in the beginning?

The agreements don't solve the problem, and they're not good for the environment. I'd like to make three points. More often than not, they result in the feds giving up responsibility and authority, and assuming more of an advisory role.

Aquaculture here is a great example. I mean fish habitat: there is a big effect on fish habitat. Lots of deleterious substances go into the estuaries right below the cages, degrading the environment. There have never been any charges under the Fisheries Act for any of this destruction. DFO has written a few advisory comments to the provincial department of fisheries and aquaculture, but there's been no protection of the environment. That's the first concern.

• 1010

The second concern is that with these agreements, it's really difficult for the public to know who does what and it's difficult for the public to become involved, because it's not transparent. At least if it's in legislation, we can read the legislation, know what it says and hold each level responsible for protecting the environment, as it's legally bound to do.

The third thing is that it doesn't lead to certainty. Because these agreements are not legally binding, they don't really answer the question; there's still uncertainty about who does what.

Those are the three complaints, or three issues around agreements. As you were noting, we have had these agreements in the past.

On the issue of standards, there is concern about the movement toward what's being called Canada-wide standards and away from the federal government setting the standards. The federal standards are often better than the provincial standards, and I use pulp and paper effluent as an example. In New Brunswick we don't have the strong dioxin standards that the federal government has. We rely on the federal government to take charge in some instances where the province feels politically unable to act.

The other concern is the process that's being suggested in order to arrive at the Canada-wide standard. The negotiation around the table of the ministers or their deputies at the CCME is closed. The public doesn't have a role to play in that, and we're concerned that the provinces will arrive at the lowest common denominator. Take, for instance, carbon dioxide emissions. If they were to sit around the table and come up with a standard for carbon dioxide, with Alberta having a veto, they wouldn't come up with a standard. There's a need for the federal government to step in, play a strong role and set that standard. This has a direct implication to us on the east coast. Because of the weather patterns we are directly affected by weak standards in southern Ontario or in the west.

I guess those are my comments on standards.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Allow me to first comment on the Minister's decision to postpone the signature.

I was told today that the Minister has had discussions with her provincial counterparts. Allow me to have doubts. She may have discussed with certain provincial representatives, including certain Deputy Ministers from certain provinces, but certainly not with all the Environment Ministers of all provinces. I wanted to make this clear.

Secondly, I would like to remind the committee that I informed the steering committee that I felt it was fundamental that this committee's discussions be focused on climate change as a priority, not on harmonization.

A member of the government proposed that the committee discuss the harmonization accord as a priority. This member has never been present at the consultation sessions, and I find this a bit much. Therefore, it is my view that the government party intended to avoid the question of the government's commitments regarding the agreements on...

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras, I am sorry to interrupt, but this is the second time you comment on the presence or absence of a colleague.

I must inform you that, in the House as well as on committees, the Standing Orders do not allow to comment on the presence or absence of colleagues. I will ask the Clerk to provide you with the Standing Order regarding this matter. Proceed, Mr. Knowles.

The committee Clerk: Mr. Chairman, we cannot say that there is a Standing Order on this question. These are decisions made by the Speaker of the House. The Speaker frequently reminds members that they may not comment on the presence or absence of another member. This is well documented in Beauchesne.

• 1015

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I take note, Mr. Speaker, of this instruction, but I would have liked to hear the witnesses to find out what they think of climate change. In my opinion, this is a very important issue. Today, I will nonetheless question the witnesses on the harmonization accord.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt you once again, Mr. Bigras, but I must refer you to the minutes of our committee. On Thursday, October 9, the subcommittee made a decision and recommended that the committee thoroughly study the federal- provincial harmonization of environmental policies. This was a decision made by the subcommittee and adopted by the entire committee. I am sorry.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Point of order, Ms. Kraft Sloan.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't know if this is exactly a point of order, Mr. Chair, but I would like to respond to some of the allegations that Mr.—

The Chairman: If it is not a point of order, it is not a point of order; it's debate.

An hon. member: It's a point of personal privilege.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Fine—a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: That takes precedence.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

I would like to object to what Mr. Bigras said, because it wasn't just one member of this committee who wanted to study harmonization. There were a number of members and there were members from the opposition.

This is a point of privilege with respect to a colleague. I would like to add that if we were to check the minutes of our subcommittee meeting, I believe it was a member from the opposition who thanked the chair for the input and the careful consideration of everyone's needs. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee.

The Chairman: I don't think that was a point of order, and we will now allow Mr. Bigras to continue with his questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I simply wanted to remind the committee of the priority I feel should be given to the study of issues.

Ms. Abouchar referred to budget reduction. As did many witnesses who came before us during the last few days or weeks, she expressed concern over the loss of the federal government's ability to intervene in this issue. The Supreme Court's decision confirming the federal government's ability to legislate in this area should be a guarantee and should reassure you regarding federal powers. I know that the gentleman often spoke of it, but I have not heard you speak of this question.

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, that decision is a very important decision and is part of the reason this accord shouldn't be signed.

Your question about whether the decision gives me comfort, if you will, that the federal government will still be able to step in—the problem is that it's just bringing uncertainty. We're going to sign an agreement that says the federal government shall not act. That's what it says, the federal government shall not inspect, whereas the court decision says the federal government has every right to and should be inspecting and enforcing. So the agreement is contrary to the Supreme Court decision, which is a problem.

Does that mean we have to bring this agreement to court? Does that mean we have to bring the federal government to court in order to ensure that the federal government acts? We don't want that. We would like this accord to be in the spirit of the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: Again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe I should tell you I'm a scientist, because I keep saying I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you want to know what I actually am. I am a scientist.

• 1020

My understanding of the Supreme Court decision is as follows. The Supreme Court decision only dealt with jurisdictional issues over regulating toxic substances for the protection of the environment. So it was a very narrow definition. Now that was under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The new bill, which was introduced last year prior to the election, actually had a provision in it that says it is below or under the harmonization accord. That is, the accord on the Peace River was more important and subsumes the new bill. So yes, we are still concerned.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: We are told, and this is obvious, that the purpose is to protect the environment. A true protection of the environment, it seems, should involve... In any case, if responsibilities must be transferred to the provinces to ensure a better protection of the environment, should not budgets also be transferred in order to provide all the necessary resources to truly protect the environment?

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: There is no protection of the environment in this accord. Nowhere in the accord does it increase protection for the environment except in the vision statement. The vision statement says we'll have the highest level of environmental quality across the country, but nothing under the vision statement gives you any reason to believe that. There is nothing underneath the vision statement that will lead to better protection of the environment.

Yes, if the federal government were to give away its powers, which I don't support, it should also provide funding to do the job. That's unlikely to happen.

I agree with Burkhard, we shouldn't be talking about spending less money on environmental protection, we should be talking about spending more money on environmental protection. You say that's impossible, because you have reduced money and you can't.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We don't say that any more.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: When you have 18 oil sand developments in Alberta, which are going to have transboundary and international effects, you cannot say it's acceptable to continue to lower the budget, whether it's provincially or federally. It isn't acceptable. We have to find more money to better protect the environment.

I want to say I support the postponement of the signing of the accord. They can keep postponing it forever as far as I'm concerned, and I'm very willing to come back and talk about climate change.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: You referred to budget cuts in all the provinces. Transfers to the provinces are being cut, including environment transfers. Consequently, it could hardly be argued that, because there are cuts in transfers to the provinces, the federal government should assume that responsibility and be in charge.

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: We're not asking the federal government to assume the provincial government's responsibility. We're not asking that provincial governments delegate or devolve their responsibilities to the federal government. We think everyone—individuals, provinces, municipalities, the federal government—has a role to play in environmental protection. Everyone has a role to play and we're just asking everybody to do their job. The federal government has to provide the resources necessary to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities for environmental protection.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Bigras. Mr. Pratt, please.

[English]

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

My question is more of a general one and I would address it to all three of our witnesses. They have certainly touched upon the answer on a number of occasions, but I would like them to expand on it.

What I'm getting from your comments is that you would not be unhappy with what I would describe as a reassertion of federal authority in the area of the environment. Can you be a bit more specific in terms of which areas you'd like to see the federal government do more in within their own realm of responsibilities?

• 1025

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: In the media example, a timely one is the enforcement of the Fisheries Act, especially the habitat protection areas. There used to be an agreement between the Province of Ontario, the natural resources department, and the federal government to do enforcement actions that has recently been dissolved. So certainly enforcement of the habitat protections of the Fisheries Act is one example, and also enforcement of the Fisheries Act provision that deleterious substances shouldn't be disposed of into waters that are frequented by fish. In addition, I guess I would include the federal authority to clearly regulate toxic substances. What I mean by that is not just the enforcement part but also the development of what I would call phase-out and bans of those substances that are particularly hazardous to us. This committee in the past has endorsed that approach from a management perspective. Those are two immediate ones I can think of right now.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I would mention the Fisheries Act, too. I would suggest sections 35 and 36 need to be reclaimed by the federal government—also, environmental impact assessment. We had an experience recently with expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway all the way from Fredericton to Moncton and it triggered the federal EA many times. At least, it should have triggered the federal EA many times, but the feds sat back and did a very minor bit of assessment where the road crossed the Gagetown base, federal lands. It crossed a huge wetland, the largest wetland in the province, yet there was no impact assessment of the effect on the wetland. That should have triggered the federal EA in several ways, but it didn't happen. So this is another area in which we'd like to see a bigger federal presence.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: With respect to fisheries again, this strategy is going in the other direction. This is toward the sustainable development strategy for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is basically saying the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans will become a department of oceans. That's what it's saying: forget the fish, particularly in inland Canada, in freshwater Canada. This is going in the wrong direction, not the right direction. As for FEA, use it. We worked very hard on that act, but we're having to force the federal government to use the act every time we turn around. You've got some good legislation there; use it.

On climate change, the federal government is being held hostage to Alberta. The federal government does not need to be held hostage to Alberta. The federal government has jurisdiction to take a position on this issue and to ensure it. The federal government is partly to blame for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions because it gave substantial tax cuts that allowed substantial expansion of the oil sands developments that would not have otherwise happened. Those oil sands developments are the biggest reason we're going to have problems meeting any climate change obligations. It's because you gave them the tax cuts that those developments are proceeding, and now you're afraid to put any kind of carbon dioxide, carbon tax... Again, the federal government has to assert its responsibility in areas the federal government is responsible for.

On acid rain, Ontario blocked any progress. I sat on the acid emissions task group and the federal government was afraid to say they have to take steps, even though the impacts are transboundary. Even though the health of Canadians and the health of the environment is being destroyed, Ontario says it won't agree to any schedule of targets in reductions. The federal government said I guess we can't do it then.

Mr. Gar Knutson: When was this?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: The report was released just two weeks ago. I've given a copy of the report to Mr. Caccia's assistant and the recommendations of the different sectors are in there.

The federal government sat back and let the other sectors make the recommendations. They facilitated the whole process, but in the end they let Ontario block any substantial recommendations on setting targets in reductions for reducing acid rain, which we all agreed needed to be done.

• 1030

Everyone on the committee agreed it had to be done, but we could not come to agreement because it required the consensus of the committee to make the recommendations. Not only could we not get consensus because Ontario blocked it, but the federal government was not willing to put on the table their position with respect to the need for targets in reductions.

Mr. David Pratt: Just another question.

The Chairman: All right, briefly.

Mr. David Pratt: I was really struck by your comment that—and please correct me if I'm wrong—Alberta is the reason for Canada not meeting its carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: If you look at the reason we have gone up 10.2% in Canada, it is because Alberta has increased their carbon dioxide emissions over 18%. If you took Alberta out of Canada—and I'm not proposing that—the rest of Canada would have been very close to meeting its obligations on carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. David Pratt: Where does that information come from?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: There was recently released information in the last week showing that Alberta accounts for the majority of the 10.2% increase.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Madam Carroll, Mr. Herron, Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Ms. Abouchar, we've listened to a variety of groups, as you can imagine, and earlier in the week we heard from representatives of the mining industry association. Let me just describe it as perhaps some business input into what we're discussing. They requested that we consider their need for uniformity, for certitude, and they asked us to keep in mind that they would much prefer to deal with one voice and one set of rules. Their plea was that they needed to know the expectations. Do you think that's reasonable?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, and that's what the environmental community wants as well. It's a question of whose rules, provincial rules or federal rules. FEA is the strongest standard we have, and that's what we would want to see.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: We've just looked at some pictures from your Alberta colleague, if I can call her that, who has shown us pictures of gravel quarrying in the North Saskatchewan River. I recall reading not long ago about a proposal for similar work around the Port Charlotte area in New Brunswick. Is that...?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Are you talking about the Bayside Quarry in the St. Croix River? It had an international connection where the governors in Maine were asking that the quarry not continue because it was an international waterway, an eagle habitat, and there was a lot of been aware of it and would have complained about it but it might not have reached national significance or reached... You might not have known about it, had it not been for the Maine governor raising the alarm.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Leaving that—and I thank you for that—you made the comment that the subagreements don't lead to certainty. That word “certainty”, as I say, has been mentioned to us by business. They, too, want certainty. It seems there is a unanimous request for that. From my perspective it seems a very reasonable thing to ask for.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: They don't achieve certainty in many, many ways. I don't have time to go into clause-by-clause analysis, which we have done and we can give you, but I offer just one example. For instance, we have standards. These Canada-wide standards have been set—and we're already concerned they are going to lead to the lowest common denominator—but then in the implementation part, provinces aren't obliged to implement them. There is a lot of flexibility in their implementation so that maybe a province would implement it, maybe not. There's no certainty there. That's just one example.

• 1035

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: May I just respond to it?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Please do.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: When my colleagues from the Mining Association of Canada—I call them colleagues because I constantly deal with them around tables and some of them have become friends—talk about uniformity and certainty, it also has to apply to them. To give you an example, again with Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, there is that four-party memorandum of understanding among the provincial and federal governments, the Innu and the Inuit. The company decided to go ahead with building infrastructure such as an airfield and a road, and exempted it from the assessment. The Innu and Inuit felt compelled to go to court. They went to the highest level of the provincial court and actually won.

The judges said it was completely and utterly irresponsible of Voisey's Bay Nickel Company to go ahead and start building the road and airstrip. So when the companies talk about uniformity and certainty, they shouldn't just expect that model from their federal and provincial government, they should also expect it from themselves.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Our researcher, Kristen Douglas, would like to ask a question of Ms. Abouchar.

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): We weren't sure whether that clause-by-clause analysis of the subagreements has already been provided to the committee. If it hasn't, please provide it so that it can be circulated to the committee members and us.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Carroll, have you completed your questions?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Knutson.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have two questions. Picking up on a comment made earlier in the week, it may be advantageous... We've talked about the KPMG study and the indication that there wasn't any overlap or duplication. The management techniques utilized today usually use management by exception. Has there ever been a comprehensive study that actually identified where there are gaps in the systems?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: At the very first meeting of the national advisory group on harmonization, all the advisory group members, industry and NGO members said there should be a study on what the needs are, what the problems are, that we need to address through a harmonization agreement. We have continued to recommend that every step of the way. Identify what the problems are before you start fixing them, and that includes gaps. That has never been done.

Mr. John Herron: I think that's something the committee should strongly consider. I noticed Madam Kraft Sloan made that—

Ms. Martha Kostuch: I made that one of my specific recommendations—identify what the needs are before you start fixing it.

Mr. John Herron: All right.

I've asked this question to other groups and I'd like to have your perspective, although I sort of know where you may head with it. Does it make sense to have one of the subagreements be relevant to inspection and not have enforcement done at the same time?

Does that make sense, Juli?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: We strongly opposed the original agreement on enforcement. I don't want to see enforcement devolved to the provinces. This is an area where some people might call it duplication, but we see it as necessary given some of the political influences in the provinces. We see it as important to have two levels of government doing enforcement. So we would not encourage enforcement to be downloaded, and we see the inspection subagreement as essentially going in that direction. It's the thin edge of the wedge. If the federal government can't inspect then it can't do a good job enforcing because it can't get the evidence to enforce.

I don't know if I'm answering your question.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: There was a subagreement on enforcement. There were eleven subagreements with the first package but they met so much opposition that the governments withdrew and decided they would first get their toes wet and see how these fly. Besides, a couple of the provincial governments, particularly Alberta and Quebec, said they weren't going to buy any of this without an EA subagreement.

• 1040

So the EA was not part of the first package of eleven subagreements, but one of those was enforcement. There were a number of others. They met so much opposition from so many people, including us and industry, that they took those back off the table. The intent is to put them back on the table, but you're right on inspection and enforcement: if you're going give away the inspection, how can you say you're not going to give away the enforcement?

Mr. John Herron: To clarify, it would be your recommendation that before any kind of accord is signed, at a minimum the study on gaps should take place in advance.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: The gaps, the needs—what are the problems? Identify the problems before you start fixing.

We're not opposed to better cooperation. We're not opposed to better communication. We'll help. If it's for the purpose of environmental protection, we'll be there at the table helping. But let's find what the problems are and let's address those problems. Let's not just pick some imaginary problems out of the air, such as duplication and overlap, and say we're going to have an agreement to fix this imaginary problem.

Mr. John Herron: That makes sense, yes. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, followed by Mr. Knutson, followed by Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I would like to preface my comments by saying you're not the first group that's inferred apologetically that you're not lawyers, and I would suggest to you that may not be a point you have to apologize for.

Anyway, I have a couple of points. Through the discussions we've had on harmonization—and now it looks as though perhaps we're going to have more time to discuss it, which I also applaud—we're not only dealing with jurisdictional matters; we're also examining the track record under historical agreements.

If we shift our attention now to climate change, that will be tremendously beneficial for me, because the level of discussion we're going to have on the climate change issue is going to involve some of those very same things. At the end of the day, it's “Can you do what you've said you were going to do?”, and there's absolutely overlap on those issues.

I would like to thank the chair for pointing out that we are bound by parliamentary procedure, because I might have made the same mistake Mr. Bigras made by pointing out the absence of a member. So I won't do that.

If you look at the definition and clarification and understanding of not only federal and provincial jurisdictions, but also federal and provincial track records, as a means to good environmental policy and not an end to itself, you've helped the debate. I would like to dispel the notion that we've been wasting our time, because I've found it tremendously valuable.

Which leads me to my question. I've been trying to look at concrete measures, and one of the things that came up in a previous discussion was the idea of standards and the critical role that standards play. Evaluation mechanisms can be put in place and things can be hammered out, but if the standard is too low, then you have problems.

Would a two-thirds consensus, as opposed to a unanimous consensus, among the provinces be a significant enough benefit to pursue? That's question one. Two, you're the first group that's really introduced the notion of formalizing public participation. Do you honestly think that is workable?

The danger from the economic side is that the interference would just be so substantial that the development would grind to a halt. I don't believe that, but I just wonder if you could speak to that issue. How would you see that being structured, that third participant, who often gets overlooked? In light of the fact that we have someone here who went out on Thanksgiving and did something that perhaps the government should have been doing, and didn't get paid for it, do you see that working? Is that what's missing here, or is that missing in general?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: On the standards issue and the two-thirds majority, I have no problems with provinces and the federal government getting together and identifying some areas where they need to work together and developing some joint strategies. We do have a federalism here, and there are areas we have to work together on. But our federalism allows us to do that. We don't need an accord to do that; we can do it now.

• 1045

I've been on a number of those committees. I sit on the NAECC Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the National Air Emissions Coordinating Committee's Stakeholder Advisory Committee. I sat on the Acid Emissions Task Group. I fully support development of strategies and plans in a cooperative manner and I'm willing to assist in those.

That doesn't mean we don't need federal standards and it doesn't mean we need two-thirds consensus on standards. The federal government has a role, and where they have a constitutional role, they should be exercising that. Federal standards have been very important in the protection of the environment in Canada. Often they have led to much better provincial standards. Federal standards have contributed to uniformity. What better way to get uniformity across the country than federal standards?

Where you have both governments with jurisdiction in areas, where you have to try to seek cooperation in both jurisdictions, we don't need an agreement to do that. Let's do it.

As far as public involvement goes, we have to have the public involved in it, and it doesn't need to be time-consuming or expensive or any of those sorts of things. I sit on a number of public participation processes, both at a provincial level and at a national level, and I do it completely as a volunteer. I'm receiving more calls than the Minister of Environment in Alberta, I'm sure, and going out and doing more inspections. I do it totally as a volunteer.

Canadians are doing a lot to protect the environment, and we must be involved in developing the rules and participating in the plans and the strategies. But in the end, it's your legal obligation. We're there to help you do that, but you're the ones who are legally responsible for doing it.

The Chairman: Is there anything further?

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: Yes, I have a brief note on the first aspect.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan asked a question earlier about standards. Like Martha, I do go through a lot of these consultations about various issues, whether it's the strategic options process, or a couple of weeks ago it was the national pollutant release inventory, or the Great Lakes elimination strategy, and so on. At each of those consultations, you do have provincial representation. In the development of those standards, if you don't have the people right there sitting, they get circulated the material, they get an opportunity to comment, and frequently they put up their hands and say no, I don't like this, and this is why.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I want to make one quick point, and this is not a procedural thing, but a philosophical thing.

As the water flows throughout Canada, so does the money. I would resist the temptation to hold one province up and say they're the devil. As a nation, we benefit when Alberta booms, and we have to take some responsibility too. I'm not prepared to point fingers; I'm saying that as a country, we have to come to grips with the economic-environmental trade-off—and trade-off is a bad word, I realize, but the implications of making those modifications—and as a country we have to accept the consequences of those modifications. Otherwise this thing is going to go off the rails very soon in the process.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have two specific questions, but I'll start with a general point and get your response. It seems to me, from listening to you folks and other environmental groups who have educated us on the history of environmental progress, that more often than not it comes out of conflict, whether it's legal conflict or jurisdictional conflict. Lawsuits aren't necessarily a bad thing; they're a healthy instrument. It might cost a lot of money, but at the end of the day we're better off in that we have a stronger environment.

In so far as this agreement is built around a language of consensus and agreement and is trying to remove conflict from the process, that seems to be where a lot of the unease comes that people will start doing things, not so much to better the environment, but more to minimize the conflict. I wonder if you feel that's a fair assessment.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Conflict is not bad, but we need both conflict and cooperation. It's not either/or. Conflict often raises the issue, but in the end you have to work together to solve the issue. As much as I'm in the courts—and I'm in the courts quite a lot—I'm also sitting down with industry and government to try to work towards solutions at the same time.

• 1050

I'm on a number of task forces. One good example right now is the flaring task force in Alberta, where the issue was raised to public profile through conflict, through the media and various methods. Now we're sitting around the table together to try to solve it. I'm very pleased that both the government people at the table—and in this case both federal and provincial governments are at the table—and the industry are working very hard, cooperatively, to come up with a solution to this problem.

I don't see it as an either/or situation. It's what's in the best interests of the environment. Sometimes the environment is best served by conflict; sometimes it's best served by cooperation and collaboration. It's the environment that we're concerned about, and doing what's in the best interests of the environment.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I would add that I don't think the accord necessarily leads to an effective, good cooperation, partly because the accord is so muddy. It's so uncertain. It's so unclear who does what. That isn't going to lead to better cooperation. It's going to lead to more harmful conflict in some instances.

You can have two provinces or two entities interpreting the accord in different ways, which is what happened. We had a public consultation in New Brunswick and we gave our analysis. We said, “This clause is going to result in this.” And the bureaucrats who had been working on negotiating the accord said, “Gee, we hadn't thought of it. We thought it would be interpreted like this.” The very fact that there are two ways to interpret one clause is going to lead to an unproductive conflict.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, that's the nature of language, though. Different people—

Ms. Juli Abouchar: But it could be much better written, with clear objectives, and it could lead to cooperation.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Perhaps the muddiness of the writing is hiding some other agenda.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Perhaps.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You made a reference to Alberta exporting 80% of its carbon dioxide emissions, and I just wondered if you could provide us with a reference for that statistic.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: It's actually a report that was done cooperatively between the Alberta government and the federal government. I brought the overhead showing the exports. I didn't bring the report itself, but it was—

Mr. Gar Knutson: What's the name of the report?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: I will provide that for you. I don't have it with me today. It's a report on acid depositions, and it shows we export 64% to Saskatchewan in the east, 9% to the Northwest Territories, 4% to the United States, and 3% to British Columbia. That was a joint report. I will get the name of that for you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The other thing is, in your testimony you were talking about the Tay River, and you said the federal justice department requested information and the Alberta bureaucrats said they wouldn't give it unless they were going to have the right to permit. Can you give us a reference for where that came from? I want to quote it directly.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: It's in the courts right now. It's the Tay River. It's David Jensen v. the Municipal District of Clearwater and Richardson Brothers Limited. It hasn't yet been reported, because the return date is November 5 on the case. I'm acting as the agent for that case, and federal Justice is still considering whether to intervene.

We're still prosecuting. It's a private prosecution. Federal Justice is considering whether to intervene, and in their consideration they asked Alberta Fish and Wildlife for the information. I've been in communication with the federal justice department, and we understand the response they received—and this is a verbal response—

Mr. Gar Knutson: So it's not public record then?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: It's a verbal response. The response they received was that they weren't going to cooperate, because until they were given the right to give authorizations, they were no longer going to be assisting in the inspection and enforcement of the act.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay, that's all.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): A lot of your statements summed up the uncertainties. I want to give the reason for priorizing the whole issue of harmonization.

• 1055

Coming into the committee and coming into government, the issue of harmonization was an unknown. It seems the devolution of powers was the inevitable result. In discussing carbon dioxide emissions and transborder regulations, regulations, this was at the base of it. If you don't have the regulations, you don't have the power, it's no use talking about the results. You can raise awareness, but if you don't have the power, it comes to a head. The realization is that the federal powers...the industry that spoke, the environmentalists, the legal perspective, and the community perspective—all want to retain the federal powers on environment.

I go back in my reference to our interconnectiveness with the environment and our Mother Earth. A few years ago a resources transfer took place in this country from the federal government to the provinces. If somebody researched and looked at the process of that transfer...did it originate with an accord before the transfer took place and made it constitutional? That's a question that maybe... I don't know if anyone ever looked at that. What process did it actually take for the federal government to decentralize its resources jurisdiction?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: In the case of the three prairie provinces—that's where it was under the natural resources transfer amendments—in the early 1930s the constitution was amended to give the resources basically to the provinces. I have looked at it to some degree, and I looked at the history leading up to it and the debate leading up to it. They had committees similar to this, and they met together and discussed what should be included in that, the conditions, and what the constitutional amendment should consist of.

I'm not aware of any accords or agreements as such leading up to that. Rather, discussions went on. I have much of that information. Discussions went on between the prairie provinces and the federal government over what that constitutional amendment should be. But it wasn't preceded by an accord or an agreement. It was a constitutional change.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I can add to that. The constitution does it for the rest of Canada. For the original provinces that joined Confederation it was agreed that certain resources would be provincial and it was just for the other provinces to try to arrive at these resource agreements after the fact.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Water was not involved in that whole process, though.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The federal government retained its—

Ms. Martha Kostuch: No, water was transferred. Water was transferred to the prairie provinces under the natural resources transfer amendments. What was not transferred is navigable waters. So the responsibility for navigation was not transferred, nor was the responsibility for fisheries and fisheries habitat protection.

So we don't dispute that Alberta owns the water in Alberta. This water, when it passes through Alberta, is Alberta water. When it gets to Saskatchewan it's Saskatchewan water. When it gets to Manitoba it's Manitoba water. When it gets to Hudson Bay it's the federal government's responsibility. But the fish that live in it—the fisheries—and navigation are a federal responsibility.

I agree, it's a little confusing, but that's what federalism is all about. We could do away with the provinces and then we wouldn't have the confusion. We would have one level of government. But we have some confusion. We have some shared responsibility. But it makes no more sense to give environmental protection to one level of government than it would to give economics or finances to one level of government.

Environment is something so important it's really comparable to finances. If the federal government wanted to devolve all its responsibility for economics and finances to the provinces, then we're not a country any more, and the same...

We each have responsibility for environment. I have a responsibility to protect the environment, to do what I can. So do the municipalities, so do the provinces, and so does the federal government. We're not asking the provinces to give us theirs. We don't want them to. We want them to do a better job. We think they have important roles to play in environmental protection. We just think the federal government has an important role to play, and we want it to play that role.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The other aspect I wanted to is the whole issue of awareness.

Last night I had the privilege of sharing an evening with an auditorium full of people from the region, I would assume, who wanted to listen to David Suzuki on the release of his new book. He spoke for an hour, but the majority of the crowd were very young people.

• 1100

The consciousness of young people about their environment is relevant. So they are concerned about their future.

This whole connection of responsibility for environment plays a major role. To me, harmonization is a conference theme, it's not an accord. Responsibility for federal jurisdiction over trans-boundary... We're connected to this air. We're connected to the water. We're connected to the land. We're all interconnected in this country. So let's not abuse each other.

There's a consciousness to be made. We have to be conscious of the Alberta people. I live in northern Saskatchewan. We don't have an economic impact from the oil sands, because it stops at the border. We don't have a road to get our people to the workforce.

We have a bombing range. People from Alberta fly their C-52s on the federal budget, bomb the hell out of Saskatchewan, and fly back. They don't leave anything in Saskatchewan except craters. There are no economic spin-offs.

So there is an economic cycle, there are ecological cycles, to be considered, but the two aren't meshing. When an economic cycle turns, the ecological cycle isn't given respect. So federalism in the powers of environment needs to be retained. That's what seems to be the overwhelming story here.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: That's what we're saying.

The Chairman: We are now launching the second round with Madam Kraft Sloan. However, there is a short question from this end of the table to complete the first round.

Let me first say that I fully agree. You've made a very good point, Ms. Kostuch. This is in essence the committee on finance, a committee on finance for the long term. It's an illusion to think it is the other committee that deals with the long term. They live from hand to mouth at best. The convergence of the economy with the environment is one that is so striking and so evident there are times it makes you shudder.

The question is simply this. In the opinion of the three of you, and following up on the question asked earlier by Ms. Carroll, what would be the prerequisites you would propose for an ideal one-stop system?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: I'm not sure there is such a thing as an ideal one-stop system. I guess it would be to get rid of the provinces and have just one level of government.

I'm not sure having a one-stop system is necessarily ideal, but if you're going to have one window, then have both faces at the window. If there's going to be one window, then there should be a federal government presence at that window and a provincial government presence at the window.

We talked about this in Alberta. Quite frankly, there are more problems between the departments and agencies within the province than there are between the federal government and the provincial government. Even within Alberta Environmental Protection there are many windows people have to go through. If they had only one window at Alberta Environmental Protection they would be doing a great job. But I go to one branch in Alberta Environmental Protection and find out what is happening, then I go to another branch and tell them what is happening, then I go to another branch and tell them what is happening. There are a lot of problems within provincial agencies and between provincial agencies that could be improved on.

Again, the real question is what is the problem and what needs fixing. Is the real problem not having one window for environmental protection? I'm not sure that's the real problem.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I would like to emphasisize the importance of having two levels acting. I know business wants one window, one place to go to get all the permits. On an administrative level that's okay, so long as both levels are having their say and ensuring their requirements are met. But on the level of enforcement, because of some of the tensions within, certainly, New Brunswick and Newfoundland—if I can speak for Newfoundland as well—it's extremely important and valuable to have two levels acting on enforcement, two levels involved in environmental impact assessment, because of the strain of a primarily resource dependent province, understandably interested in jobs and development, and industry that's politically very powerful.

• 1105

The concern is that the environment suffers, the environment gets left behind in that sort of regime. So I would just like to emphasize that while administratively one window isn't objectionable as far as retaining power and responsibility goes, it's really important to have two levels.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: I tend to agree with my colleagues. I don't know if it's possible to have that ideal system. I'm trying to think of other countries, but I can't really think of any.

Assuming it worked, let me answer your question directly. You're asking for three prerequisites for this ideal one-window shopping, one-window approach.

I guess there ought to be, as the first one, a consistent national standard; that is, a Canadian in Newfoundland is as important as someone in Ontario, Ottawa, all over. Everyone, for example, has the benefit of being protected from toxic substances in the same way. And we can go on and on, whether it's health protection for food...and so on.

If the provincial government would decide too that stricter standards are needed or they want to do that, fine, but that every Canadian is equal is the first prerequisite.

The second one would be public access, both in terms of the political process that develops these standards and develops law and regulation that then applies at that one window and public access to the judicial system. You could make an argument that public access to the judicial system is very limited already but it could be expanded.

I guess the final one is really just copying what you said, Mr. Chair, which is a recognition of the—I think you used the word “shudderingly”...the recognition of the relationship between ecology and the economy.

The Chairman: Convergence.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: Convergence, yes, and how that relationship is expressed we can see on a daily level.

Those would be three principles from the top of my head that I would use.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will start a quick second round. Madam Kraft Sloan followed by Madam Carroll.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Before I ask my question, I just want to put forward a clarification and an assurance to members that all of the provinces, including Quebec, agree to postpone the harmonization signing until after Kyoto—just so we'll all be clear on that one.

I want to go back to this discussion of gaps, because this has come up time and time again. Could you just briefly let us know in what key areas you feel there are important gaps, whether its environmental assessment or whatever? Could you identify those for us?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: We've recommend a gaps analysis, so we really do. That needs to be done.

Certainly I've pointed out some of them today. Inspection and enforcement are areas of gaps. Certainly environmental assessment is a gap because we're having to force the federal government to use the act that it has instead of using it willingly.

On the Fisheries Act, we have basically no presence of fisheries people from the federal government in inland Canada. So there are major gaps in just people resources to do the job that needs to be done. There's one office in Winnipeg that's responsible for all fisheries across Canada. So you don't have any fisheries habitat people out in the field in inland Canada to do the job.

Those are just a few examples I have.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: One example that comes to my mind relevant to Atlantic Canada is coastal zone management. There's an area where it's unclear in the Constitution where one party's role starts and the other's begins. As a result, each party has let the ball drop. We don't have a coastal zone management policy in New Brunswick. Many of my examples are focused on activities in that area: rockweed harvesting, aquaculture, pulp mill effluents. A lot of these problems are emerging right in that coastal region.

• 1110

The Chairman: I apologize to Madam Carroll. I did not know that Mr. Charbonneau wanted to ask a question and he hasn't had a first round. Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like to ask Ms. Kostuch, who stressed the importance of public participation in all these questions, to further explain the role of the advisory committee she is a member of. Is this not a way to ensure participation? Is it enough? Why does she constantly call for better participation while she herself was associated with the consultation that led to all this process? What more is needed?

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Certainly if the national advisory group had had any attention paid to it, it would have been useful. If you go back and look at the minutes of the national advisory group, we made a number of recommendations, but I don't know of any recommendations that were actually accepted.

I would say in theory it was a good idea. In practice we were ignored almost totally. I'm not talking about just the ENGO members or the environmental group representatives on there but the industry representatives.

The other thing is our main purpose there was to provide advice on the public involvement plan and public involvement process. Again, we did provide that advice. That advice was never followed.

So why did we participate when it was such a lousy process? Well, we participated because it was the only process there was. It was the only opportunity, as lousy as it was, to influence what was happening.

I have worked very hard on this, and so has our group of over sixty environmental groups, for the last four years. I do all this as a volunteer, and I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this agreement. I've done it through all the various advisory processes as well as own process. We are willing to work in a cooperative manner to try to improve environmental protection in Canada in a cost-efficient manner. But the involvement has to be meaningful. It has to be more than token involvement. The national advisory committee was a token group, and it was ignored.

We have recommended that the CCME set up a multi-stakeholder advisory committee to advise it on an ongoing basis, to provide some level of public input. Certainly environmental protection is a concern of Canadians, and a large public concern, and there has to be an opportunity for the public to express the concern.

I'm certainly very grateful for this opportunity. I think this is a very good opportunity for you to listen to some members of the public, although a limited section. I appreciate this.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Was the advisory committee you were on linked with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment or with the Minister of the Environment of Canada?

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: There were two advisory committees. I sat on both of them. There was the CCME advisory committee, a national advisory group called “the NAGs”. We were the NAGs. The national advisory group was formed by the CCME. Federal minister Marchi formed a separate advisory group because the CCME ministers refused to meet with the national advisory group even though the national advisory group requested it. They would not because a few ministers were blocking that and they operated under consensus. So federal minister Marchi formed his own advisory group, largely of the same people who were on the national advisory group, to meet with him and provide him with advice.

He also organized and invited other ministers to attend that meeting, and a number of them did, including the Quebec minister and other ministers—not the Alberta minister. A number of them did attend his advisory group meeting, which was pretty well the same as the national advisory group meeting. But he wanted to be able to meet directly with the advisory committee.

• 1115

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Should we conclude that there were many consultation mechanisms? What you regret may not be so much the lack of consultation devices as the inability to find an ear for receiving the results of these consultations.

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: I don't expect always to have my views agreed with, but I do expect to be given a fair opportunity to be heard. So just the fact that you have an advisory committee—

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Two.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: —or two, in this case—does not mean there was any meaningful input. I know Marchi attempted very much to get some meaningful input, but I know how much baulking there has been from some of the other provinces.

We recommended a number of public consultation processes, though, that went beyond the advisory group, and they were never implemented. We did have two workshops. The reason the first accord was not signed, with the eleven subagreements, was that everyone at the first workshop, which was a recommendation of the advisory group, said no to it, industry and NGOs. They were scared to have it after the last one. They didn't want to have another one because they were afraid they might get the same response, so they just didn't have another workshop. They disbanded the national advisory group without ever meeting with the ministers to hear our concerns directly. It has all been through bureaucrats.

Really, this harmonization agreement is an exercise of the bureaucrats, not an exercise of the ministers. It has come from the bureaucrats and it has been their baby all along. They have never wanted us to talk directly to the ministers because the ministers might actually listen to us.

While I was involved in every opportunity...and I wouldn't have been disappointed if they hadn't agreed with what we said if we actually felt we had been given an opportunity to be listened to.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to thank you for these answers and thank my colleague Carroll for allowing me to ask my questions.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Ms. Kostuch, I have a quote here from you. It's very quotable. “Where's the duplication? Where's the overlap? Where's the government?” It's a killer phrase by any politician's definition.

It leads me to ask you this. If we don't have duplication and we don't have overlap—and I'm hearing that repeated by a number of witnesses—I'm going to ask you and your colleagues—and this perhaps come from what has been said before—what is driving this process, from your perspective? What initiated this process?

I had this question in mind before I caught you using the comment “baby of the bureaucrats”, so this may be very timely indeed. Consider that question, and then connect this to that. Do you believe the priority assigned environmental protection in this country by the provinces and the federal government and the territories reflects the views of the Canadian public?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: I want to give you one more quote, first of all.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'll write them down.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: You can't have harmonization unless all the parties are willing and able to sing. We have parties that aren't willing to sing and we have parties that don't want to sing and can't sing. You can't have harmonization unless everyone is willing and able to sing.

What is the motivation for this? To kick the federal government out. That's the number one motivation: to kick the federal government out, stop it from interfering in provincial business. The Oldman Dam is the initiator of this. They called that duplication and overlap, but it's really “we want to get the feds out”.

Cost cutting is another thing. We have to reduce costs, so the best way to reduce costs is let's have only one level of government do anything. In fact, the problem is we don't have any level of government doing anything.

The third was unity. We have to give more power—this came out of first ministers' meeting and so forth—to the provinces to keep them happy so they will stay in the country.

What we're doing is dismantling Canada piece by piece. It's disunity, not unity. If we give enough powers to the provinces, we won't have a country. We will have 12 countries. That's what we're doing. It's not unity, it's disunity.

• 1120

As far as public opinion is concerned, public opinion is strongly in favour of an enhanced federal role in environmental protection and everyone doing a better job. Poll after poll shows that. I was at the renewal of Canada conference in Halifax on the constitutional Charlottetown accord. There was almost unanimity. This is one area on which there was almost a consensus, because environment was one of the things discussed at this conference. From across the country there was unanimity, or almost unanimity, on a stronger role for the federal government in environmental protection. Certainly, that's what the polls show as well.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Before I ask your colleagues to respond if they wish to, I'm going to ask you, given your statement that from your perspective there's unanimity on public support for an enhanced federal role, do you think that factors in an acceptance of (a) reduced resources at both the federal and provincial levels, and (b) a high priorizing as a parallel to economic growth and jobs? We're talking about New Brunswick and Newfoundland, and you have to juxtapose that with the wealth of Alberta. Are you environmental spokespeople keeping in mind the juxtaposition that we have to factor in in our deliberations?

Ms. Martha Kostuch: We want cost-effective environmental protection. We don't want money wasted.

When you've asked Canadians the questions, even in time of fiscal restraint and budget restraint—those questions have been put to Canadians—their answer has been that they want environmental protection.

I come back to the chair's comment. This is the real economic development committee in this country. If you don't have a healthy environment, you do not have a healthy economy. If Alberta destroys northern Saskatchewan because of the oil sand development, what kind of economy, what kind of life, will northern Saskatchewan have? What kind of life do people in the maritimes have if you destroy the cod fishery? That's an environmental question. That's one of the best examples of economic destruction because of environmental destruction.

In the long term, if you don't protect your environment, you have no economy. You've destroyed it. So we must do both.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will now let Mr. Bigras conclude this portion of the meeting, after which we will have a brief discussion on the plans for our schedules.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, would you like to complete our round of questions?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: First, I have an observation. I also believe that all the surveys, particularly those involving youth, say that the environment is the priority. I have not seen any surveys indicating that the population would prefer this would be of federal or provincial jurisdiction. The only survey I know is that of democracy. According to me, it is the only survey. If populations elect provincial governments that have very specific demands, for example to take more and more room and be in charge, this must also be respected.

I would like to know your opinion on one basic notion, that of ecosystem. I believe it is important to fully understand environment issues and do what is needed to address them. The notion of ecosystem is often assimilated with that of a country. In your opinion, could a province be considered an ecosystem?

[English]

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: I guess the short answer is no.

The Chairman: No, and Mr. Laliberté.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to again ask Madam to reconcile two elements of answers she provided. First, I heard her say that all this harmonization issue was fundamentally a bureaucratic exercise.

• 1125

However, three minutes later, she said that what she understands is that attention is mostly being focused on

[English]

get the feds out,

[Translation]

cuts and giving more power to the provinces to keep them together in Canada, which in my opinion seems to be political, not bureaucratic considerations. These are a politician's concerns, not a bureaucrat's. As far as I know, bureaucrats tend to hold on to power,

[English]

not to get the feds out.

[Translation]

How then can one say this is a bureaucratic exercise and also say that these are the questions that led to the exercise?

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: The desire to have an agreement was largely political, for the reasons I've outlined. But the accord itself was drafted by bureaucrats, was guarded by bureaucrats, was—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do you mean to say that this was taken over by bureaucracy?

[English]

Ms. Martha Kostuch: They took hold of it and they came up with the wording, not the concept. The concept came from the politicians. The wording of the agreement came from bureaucrats, and they've been very defensive on the wording and changing the wording.

So you're right. In the beginning it was for political reasons. It continues to be.

The reasons have changed over time. First there was duplication and overlap. They did the study. The study said there wasn't any duplication and overlap. So then they thought of another excuse for it. Now unity seems to be the big driving force.

Those are political driving forces, but the actual accord itself was written and is guarded very defensively by the bureaucrats.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you. Now I understand better your way of thinking.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to raise a point. There was a recent signing by Saskatchewan and Manitoba of a co-operation agreement between the two provinces to environmentally conduct... I don't know what the terms are, but are there similar agreements throughout the country? The aspect of this accord is that there are going to be 13 signatories, 13 parties, and Canada is one of them. But it's also in between provinces. I stumbled on this just this past week.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: Alberta's is the first accord on environmental assessment. There are various accords on various things, all kinds of environmental things, and bilateral agreements. Alberta's was the first on environmental assessment.

That's part of the problem, though. We have all these interlapping agreements and accords. We have no public input. There was no public input into the drafting of the federal-Alberta accord. They do exist. In many cases they function quite well.

So it's the Alberta accord that's already in existence that resulted in the joint hearings on Shediac, for example. Without that accord, it likely would not have occurred. It's because of that bilateral accord.

I don't know if that's in place with all the provinces yet. I don't think so. But many of the provinces have those agreements with respect to environmental assessment in place.

The Chairman: Fine.

We shall bring this to a conclusion, with many thanks from all of us. It was a very informative, educational and productive session. We wish you well in your travels.

We wish also that you'll soon recover, Mr. Mausberg.

We will proceed now with a brief discussion, as suggested by Mr. Knutson, on our schedules.

As a result of your suggestion, Mr. Knutson, I've asked Bill Murray to come here and to inform the committee orally as to the work that he has done in the meantime on the Kyoto issue. Therefore I will ask him to outline for the members' consideration the timetable that he has prepared so that he can get some input.

Mr. Bill Murray (Committee Researcher): The first thing we have to consider is the timetable of the people who are negotiating in Kyoto.

Right now, from October 20 to October 31 there's a two-week meeting in Bonn, so there won't be anyone available to speak to us of the negotiators.

On November 7 and 8 in Tokyo there will be the last intersessional meeting of ministers.

• 1130

The Chairman: Ministers of?

Mr. Bill Murray: This is international ministers of environment.

Following that meeting there's going to be a meeting on November 12 in Regina, and this is going to be the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and Ministers of Energy, and this will be the last meeting prior to Kyoto.

What this means is that to have the negotiators here to tell us what's going to happen, we'll have to book them in on the week beginning November 17, because prior to that is the Remembrance Day break, but that does leave us some time ahead of the Remembrance Day break to get background information.

What I would suggest and what I had considered was that beginning November 3, which is a Monday, we start right in on the scientific update.

When climate change first became an issue approximately ten years ago, the original general circulation models were quite rudimentary, and the science was very preliminary. However, this got the ball rolling. Much of what we still hear today is based on this old science, and it's not based on the updated, which is quite different. I think it's very important that the committee understand where we are now.

At Environment Canada, there's a Dr. Henry Hengeveld, and it is his responsibility to stay on top of new science. There is a document published I believe semi-annually, called the CO_{2xx Report. I think it would be very good to hear from him, as the first individual.}

It's also a good idea, I believe, to hear about climate history. Our knowledge of climate and climate change only goes back as far as 1895, when records were first kept. It's rather important to go back into the geological record to understand how climate has waxed and waned. There's a Dr. Pocklington at the Bedford Institute, and I understand he's fairly good. I think those two gentlemen would make a good first attempt.

The Auditor General has tabled a number of reports, and one of the areas he's identified as a shortcoming was at Natural Resources Canada. What the Auditor General has said, or feels, is that Natural Resources does not have the capacity to evaluate its energy efficiency and alternative fuels programs.

We're told to date that Canada is 8% ahead of our 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Well, if NRCan cannot evaluate their programs, we really don't know if that is an accurate figure. So I think it would be very worthwhile to hear from the Auditor General, and also perhaps from the DG who is responsible for that section.

Canada puts out a report called the “National Report on Climate Change”. Coming out of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, part of the agreement was that on a regular basis those countries that agreed to and signed the agreement would submit a climate change report to the United Nations commission that is looking after this.

Canada in 1997 submitted its second report. It is produced by a fellow by name of Robert Audet at Environment Canada and a fellow from NRCan, Cyril Symes. I think it would probably be worth while to get an overview of the report from them.

If we do that, I think that would take us up to the time when the Canadian negotiators would be available. I propose that we hear from the Minister of Environment to see what Canada's position is going to be.

When we had the steering committee meeting a few weeks ago, Mr. Clifford Lincoln suggested that we get each of the lead departments together—NRCan, Environment Canada and Foreign Affairs—to make sure they're all singing from the same hymn book. So I would suggest that also as a meeting, right after the minister.

The Chairman: So in essence, for the understanding of all us, Mr. Murray, you are suggesting a scientific week, so to speak, as of the week of November 3, and then a departmental week, including a meeting with the minister, in the week of November 17.

• 1135

Mr. Bill Murray: That's correct.

The Chairman: Any comments? Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Environment Canada has been producing a number of reports—the Mackenzie Basin impact study, the Great Lakes, and things like that—where they've taken a look at regional effects as well as the Canada country study. By the end of November, I believe that all of those reports should be available for public release. Some of them have been released—interim reports as well as final.

I'm wondering how these reports would fit in with this schedule, because they give some overview of not so much the science, but the certainly the ramifications for ecosystems and human health, the economy, and that sort of thing.

Mr. Bill Murray: We could consider them during that first week. It would be pretty heavy.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think you can do an hour overview on some of those reports.

The Chairman: We will request it, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Stewart Cohen I believe was the lead on the Mackenzie Basin impact study, and perhaps we could talk to Dr. Gordon McBean as well, because he would have a very good handle on a lot of the other reports.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Knutson.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I just think that before we firm up the schedule on our climate change work, we should agree not to entirely abandon harmonization. I think if we are about 80% of the way through, we should at least spend a couple of meetings a week to try to get it finished.

The Chairman: That is an excellent point, and we will certainly continue until to the end of the month on this, there is no doubt. Then at that point we will be able to assess whether we need a day or two in November to complete it. But we are continuing on this until the end of the month, as agreed upon.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yesterday, if I am not mistaken, a study by Environment Canada was made public. A press conference was held in Montreal by Environment Canada and the Association de climatologie du Québec, and I would like to go along with Mrs. Kraft Sloan. I would like to know if it is possible to study the second part of the report, which, I believe, focuses on the impact of precipitations on the various regions of Quebec, specifically on the northern and southern regions. We know that the impact of precipitations will not be the same everywhere, and I would like, if possible, that the Department inform us on this issue through its officials.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Murray, will you take note of that? Thank you.

Madam Carroll, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'll pass.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just a couple of quick points on this issue. I think we're all sort of predisposed to an environmental mindset here, and having gone through the process once, on harmonization, it strikes me that either this harmonization agreement was the most ridiculous concept on earth, or we haven't heard from the other side enough.

I'm not advocating the other side. I'm just saying that it seems to me we've got a little lack of balance. When we look at climate change specifically, if we're then going to go out... Definitely I need the technical stuff, but I would also really benefit from hearing the valid arguments of the other side. I enjoy these sessions here, but I think I'm predisposed to agreeing with them ahead of time. That's just a thought; it doesn't require an answer.

The second thing is that as we're putting together our witness list, seeing as we've already captured these people with us today, maybe they have an idea of some NGOs that should be on the list. Before they leave the room maybe we could ask them that.

Ms. Martha Kostuch: In particular there are Louise Comeau and Robert Hornick, who are taking the lead for the environmental groups on this issue, and they certainly have a very good scientific basis, and have done a lot of work on this. I would encourage you to invite them to appear before the committee.

The numbers that were just released show 10.2%. They have just completed an assessment of the emissions that was just released last week. The numbers show that Canada has exceeded by 10.2%, and not 8%.

• 1140

The Chairman: There is a good point that has to be made here in connection with your observation, Mr. Jordan, that Mr. Murray is presenting us not with a schedule that would consist of NGOs or the opposing side but presenting us with a schedule that would consist of the scientific evaluation. So we are sticking to that.

Are there any further comments? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I suppose the scientific community will be returning from Bonn—I think there's a big involvement for them there—on June 3. Is that the scheduled opening?

Mr. Bill Murray: The Bonn meeting goes until October 31, 1997.

The Chairman: The International Panel on Climate Change is the engine of all these meetings, and that consists of scientists of reputable knowledge.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There was one name—I think it was James Bruce—that was put to our attention as the name of someone who is quite versed in that area, and we couldn't have access to him until he returned from Bonn around November 3, 1997.

The Chairman: Who is “we”?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Our environment...as a critic with my office.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Because emissions weren't going anywhere in this country until—

The Chairman: Well, we can ask Mr. Murray to include Mr. Bruce, if he was in Bonn, as one of the witnesses who would appear in the week of November 3, 1997.

Mr. Bill Murray: My understanding is he was at Government House last night getting an award. It was on TV.

The Chairman: Well, you are better informed than we are.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What I was saying was some of those people may not be available in the interim, but we are finishing up this round of hearings on harmonization next week. If we postponed the researchers' work, we could do some preamble at the end of next week, a day on emissions, to try to get an early start on it.

The Chairman: No, next week it is all devoted to this. We are not going to disturb it. That peaceful battleship is going to continue on its track. But we are grateful to Mr. Murray for the work he has done for the weeks of November 3 and 17.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, could I just ask you to review with me the number of scheduled meetings now in place for next week, given the information we have received that we are not racing toward a November 4 deadline.

The Chairman: Mr. Knowles, would you like to do that tout de suite.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday morning we will have the Assembly of First Nations. I've also received a call from the Canadian Labour Congress, from their national director for health, safety, and environment. The committee might wish to include them Tuesday morning or another time.

The Chairman: Or in the afternoon.

The Clerk: Or in the afternoon.

The Chairman: But no, we have a problem in the afternoon, so it can't be done Tuesday afternoon.

The Clerk: I understand we will be getting together informally for lunch on Tuesday of next week as well.

The Chairman: Yes, you will receive a note from the clerk tomorrow about our informal lunch on Tuesday, and about the visit of the colleagues from China the following week.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So you're talking about Tuesday morning and Tuesday afternoon. Can we just keep going?

The Chairman: No, Tuesday afternoon is taken off for an event that is in conflict with this committee. Tuesday afternoon this committee will not be sitting.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay. So Tuesday morning we will meet, and I have the first nations and also Canadian Labour Congress.

The Chairman: Possibly.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Wednesday? Because we're not writing the text now, I'm assuming we will not be meeting to do so.

The Chairman: Because of translation problems, we will not be able to give you a precise answer as to when the first draft will be available until a later date. A preliminary draft could be ready for you to use, go through, translated in both languages, of course, by Monday or Tuesday, but it would not yet integrate and include the witnesses of next week. It would be an incomplete draft.

• 1145

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, I understand it's the intention of the committee to get Environment Canada and CCME back on Wednesday afternoon, to be able to review the testimony of this week and last week with them and ask questions.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So Tuesday and Wednesday are the two days on which this committee will meet next week?

The Clerk: That is right.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And not Thursday or Friday or Monday.

The Clerk: That's all we have confirmed.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I want to address that.

I certainly agree with the ideas that have been brought forward by my colleagues as to the great value of hearing from... I won't repeat all of the groups that have been named, but I do agree to meeting with them and hearing from them.

I think this is a very vital task we've undertaken, but I have to say that this week, I understand because we were moving toward a deadline, we have met five times. This prevents this member of Parliament—and I'm going to be frank—from having the opportunity to read all of what is very vital to my task on this committee. I won't even broaden that to include my other committee or my tasks there.

I know that I don't need to speak to people who are involved in the same process as I am.

I certainly am more than prepared to be very flexible and when we have deadlines, especially on anything as important as a harmonization treaty with which this government has been involved for years, to drop everything else and attend to this. But I have to be very frank and say that I am not prepared to drop everything else for this committee every week.

So I'd just like to input that, and I think this is the best place to do that. I hope that I'm being measured; I certainly feel that I am. I want to do the best job I can, and what I'm inputting here is what I think allows me to do that, to give this committee the best I can give it.

So please understand, where we have deadlines and important issues, this is number one. Where we don't, it must fit into a flow of reasonable trying to assess, learn, read and contribute.

The Chairman: Thank you. We've made good note of your points.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like to go along with my colleague. Yesterday, I was wondering why we were going so fast. Today, given that the deadlines have just been put off, I ask the question again. Why should we go so fast if there is no reason to?

I could understand that the November 4 deadline forces us to write a text and come up with first ideas, but I think that, considering the announcement Mrs. Kraft Sloan has just made, we should concentrate on fundamental issues that Canadians expect us to address. There is currently a priority and a public debate. I think Canadians expect us to discuss priority issues, and I believe it is not necessary to stick to the deadline that was given yesterday. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: There's been a brief subcommittee meeting here between Kristen Douglas and the chair. The suggestion that could emerge is the following: that Kristen Douglas and Monique Hébert and whoever is helping them prepare for the committee, for a week today, Thursday morning, a set of draft recommendations. Those will then be the object of a very thorough discussion and examination.

After that there would be a meeting Thursday morning, which could last probably three hours.

Then we would be able to arrive at the concluding operative part of the report. The prose that accompanies the recommendation will be prepared by way of background, and that is not too difficult. To elaborate it is historical background...you name it.

So next Thursday we would be at the crunch in relation to the recommendations, and we might be able to do justice to the subject-matter as recommended by Mrs. Carroll and Mr. Bigras.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Would you then like to receive my input in written form?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: By what date? I want transparency, and expectations are important.

The Chairman: As we said yesterday, we repeat the invitation on behalf of Kristen Douglas and Madame Hébert that your recommendations are more than welcome as soon as possible.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But tomorrow was the deadline. Do you wish—

The Chairman: Tomorrow or Monday.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So we have a bit of a reprieve now so that we are able—

The Chairman: Correct.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: —to digest and regurgitate by Thursday.

• 1150

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm prepared to give my recommendations now.

The Chairman: Just a moment. Kristen Douglas will give you her deadlines.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: It might help you to know that we'll have to have something written in one language by Tuesday so that it can be translated and available. What we normally would do is a list of potential recommendations. Sometimes, where there's conflict with possible recommendations that have come out, we'll put three or four in a group as options in one specific area, but it's the committee's role to choose or change or amend at that meeting on Thursday. It's just a list of options.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Please bear with me. As a new member, I'm not quite up to date on the procedures, and I never mind asking dumb questions.

The Chairman: And we want to assure you that in the end everything falls into place in a most harmonious manner.

Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.