ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 20, 2002

¿

0910

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

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Executive Director, Earth Summit 2002, Canadian Secretariat, Department of the Environment)

The Chair

Mr. Harvey Lerer

¿

0915

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ballhorn (Director General, International Environmental Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

¿

0920

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Hamzawi (Deputy Director, Environment Policy Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Hamzawi

The Chair

Ms. Christine Hogan (Director, International Policy and Cooperation Branch, Department of the Environment)

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Harvey Lerer

¿

0930

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

The Chair

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

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Christine Hogan

¿

0940

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Christine Hogan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Christine Hogan

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

¿

0945

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

Mr. Julian Reed

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

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

Mr. Harvey Lerer

¿

0955

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Nancy Hamzawi

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

À

1000

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

À

1005

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Harvey Lerer

The Chair

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

À

1010

Ms. Christine Hogan

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Christine Hogan

À

1015

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

À

1020

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

À

1025

Mr. Harvey Lerer

The Chair

Mr. Harvey Lerer

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Richard Ballhorn

The Chair

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Harvey Lerer

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

À

1030

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Ms. Nancy Hamzawi

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Nancy Hamzawi

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Ms. Nancy Hamzawi

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

À

1035

Mr. Harvey Lerer

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Mills (Red Deer)

Mr. Harvey Lerer

À

1040

Ms. Christine Hogan

Mr. Mills (Red Deer)

The Chair

Mr. Harvey Lerer

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 082

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 20, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. Welcome to the last meeting of this committee before the summer.

    Our witnesses are, from CIDA, Ms. Hamzawi, from DFAIT, Mr. Ballhorn, and from Environment Canada, Mr. Lerer and Ms. Hogan. We welcome you to the committee.

    The purpose of this meeting is to learn about developments on the agenda for the Johannesburg meeting at the end of August, the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We should start without delay. I would only indicate to the witnesses that it would be of particular interest to our committee to learn first about the points made by Mr. Desai at the UN in a meeting a couple of days ago, when he apparently held a press conference and brought the interested communities up to speed on where the NEPAD stands in the development of the agenda. Second, could you bring us up to date on topics related to the summit, such as governance and fighting poverty, water problems in the world, the thrust towards sustainable energy policies? Last, but not least, we would like to know whether there is any critical analysis being carried out of the present organism that has so far governed sustainable development at the UN, the committee on sustainable development. Is there an intent to examine its functions, its performance, measurements of its effectiveness, and is there a desire to replace it with a better mechanism?

    That's just by way of warming you up with ideas, hopefully, and now it's your decision as to who will go first. If you can keep your statements short, we can have as many questions as possible.

    Mr. Lerer.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer (Executive Director, Earth Summit 2002, Canadian Secretariat, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have provided to the committee a short presentation that I believe has been distributed. It provides an overview of the WSSD process and Canada's preparations. Then we will deal with the questions from the committee and specifically address the points you've outlined. I will keep my presentation short, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to those who have already heard it. There are a number of members here who are part of parliamentary groups, for example, on the Arctic, that we've made presentations to, and this is the same presentation.

    Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the World Summit on Sustainable Development will take place at the end of August and beginning of September in Johannesburg. It is a conference intended to be a leaders' summit that will set out a global sustainable development agenda. It is a global forum that we hope will launch new partnerships to implement a sustainable development agenda, as opposed to trying to reach a new vision or a new intergovernmental agreement. What we want to do is implement an agenda and be pragmatic and practical about starting to get things done. It is also, in our view, an opportunity to engage the private sector and civil society in the recognition, I think broadly accepted around the world, that governments cannot do this alone and we have to engage all sectors of society in order to be on this path of sustainable development. As I said, it's an opportunity to move from broad concepts and words towards action and implementation.

    That is what we hope Johannesburg will do. It is going to be a big event. South Africa is preparing for over 50,000 participants and a number of leaders. I can't give you the exact number--

    The Chair: Mr. Lerer, we are not interested in a description of the event or its composition. We want to be brought up to date on agendas, on development, and on issues.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I will then simply move to slide four on the preparations towards Johannesburg.

    A number of international positions are emerging. I have listed some of them. There is water, specifically access to water and sanitation, especially in the developing world. There is a great interest in energy and providing access to energy in the developing world. There are also interests--and I will speak to these later in respect of Canada's priorities--in health and the linkages between health and environment in agriculture, as well as biodiversity. Many nations that are going to be attending this conference are particularly interested in exploring opportunities associated with financing and market access in the global trading initiative.

    Mr. Chairman, I will simply move toward slide six in the presentation. Canada has a three-pronged approach. We want to advance Canadian priorities, and I will speak to those very shortly, we want to be able to engage in international initiatives others may bring forward that Canada would want to join because of a particular interest in Canada, and of course, we want to take the opportunity to profile Canadian success stories.

    I will move directly to slide eight, which deals with the Canadian priorities. Canada has, over the course of the preparatory meetings, advanced a number of priorities that have received support in the international community. They are health and sustainable development, where Canada is proposing and renewing partnerships and developing partnerships in order to begin building a global capacity towards a health and sustainable development initiative. The idea here is that we would build a mechanism to provide the sound science needed and the capacity around the world for specific action to be taken in regions where this is required.

    We are advancing an international governance agenda, which would raise the profile of UNEP, particularly within the international and UN community. We believe a strong voice, environmentally, is very important, and Canada is advancing that notion.

    We are also advancing a number of notions on partnerships. There is a sustainable cities initiative, which has been a Canadian success story for quite some time, and we want to expand that particularly into Africa, where we have developed new partners. As well, we have gained partnerships and interest internationally on an international dialogue on mining and sustainable development, simply because Canada is very present internationally in the mining community and we want to move forward on mining and sustainable development and sustainable methods of mining around the world.

    There is one that is missing here, the model forest initiative that my colleague Dick can speak to if you have questions on it. This is another international success that we want to pursue.

    As to the emerging international agendas, as I said before, there are two of particular importance that others are bringing forward and we are tracking and wish to join. One is the water issue, because accessibility to clean water and the provision of sanitary services is very important for alleviating poverty and moving forward internationally on sustainable development. The other is energy and proposals we believe will come forward over the coming while and in Johannesburg for partnership initiatives on that.

    So those are Canada's priorities. Those are the areas we are tracking in order to be able to join partnerships internationally as they emerge. I will simply leave my presentation there, Mr. Chairman.

¿  (0915)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ballhorn, welcome.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn (Director General, International Environmental Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, sir.

    To give you a bit of a sense of where the process is at, we finished the last preparatory meeting before the summit almost two weeks ago in Bali, Indonesia. The meeting was a little over two weeks. We would estimate that somewhere between 70% and 80% of the text is finished, in the sense of being agreed on. However, we have some difficult issues left in front of us to work on, trade, finance, and good governance in particular. Obviously, there are some other individual items, but I think the key ones would be trade, finance, and good governance. They are very much affected by the results of the Monterrey meeting on financing for development, which also deals with good governance, and similarly, the Doha meeting on the World Trade Organization, which launched a new trade negotiation. I would say some developing countries are looking to go beyond those, while many other countries say they are really state-of-the-art.

    We're fairly optimistic that through discussions, we can get ready, we can remove some of the issues before we get to Johannesburg, so that we can actually move towards a quick conclusion of the text on implementation. The text is roughly 78 pages, about 122 paragraphs, on a very wide range of issues. In fact, it's quite a challenge to pull everything together and make sure we have the right people who know the issues at the negotiations.

    We also have started work on the leaders' or political declaration at the last meeting, which is, I would say, at the beginning stages. It was only basically countries providing their own view of what the political declaration would look like and some of the substance. The active work on that will be done at Johannesburg.

    As has already been mentioned, partnership is a big item at this summit. We have an outline of what the so-called public-private and various sorts of partnerships would look like, the basic information for the partners to put forward so they can be captured in the outcomes of Johannesburg.

    Those are the three basic focuses of the discussion right now. The partnerships are very much voluntary, so they're not something that will be heavily regulated in format or follow-up at this point. But there's a lot of interest among a lot of countries and a lot of, I would say, civil society groups to get involved in various partnerships that actually support the implementation of some of the priority issues in the plan of action.

¿  (0920)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Perhaps, Ms. Hamzawi, you might want to add something on substance. We've heard a lot about process so far, but we haven't heard much about issues. Can you help us?

    Ms. Nancy Hamzawi (Deputy Director, Environment Policy Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): I think my colleagues Mr. Lerer and Mr. Ballhorn have given you a good synopsis of the state of international discussions at this point in time, as well as the Canadian positions. I would be happy to provide you with more information on specific questions and concerns that you may have, but certainly, the issues that are on the agenda for the WSSD are of direct relevance to the development agenda and poverty alleviation.

    The Chair: That's all you have to say?

    Ms. Nancy Hamzawi: If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to reply.

    The Chair: Ms. Hogan.

    Ms. Christine Hogan (Director, International Policy and Cooperation Branch, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I can make some initial comments on CSD and some of the international institutional issues. As I think the committee is well aware, for the last year Canada has been leading the charge on an international initiative related to international environmental governance, which became a process to strengthen the UN environment program, UNEP. I'm pleased to report that from negotiations in Bali, there is now in the text in front of us a commitment to fully implement the final outcomes of the agreement that was achieved in Cartagena to implement the report on international environmental governance, which, of course, was a Canadian priority. That document addresses financing of the UN environment program, coordination of multilateral environmental agreements, and the like.

    One of the key issues I personally was engaged in in Bali was the discussion on chapter 10 of the Bali plan of action, which is about institutional arrangements. That text was brought to us at the beginning of the first week of Bali, and I'm pleased to report that we did make considerable progress on those issues, getting at how to strengthen the international, regional, and national institutional structures to try to enhance sustainable development and its implementation on the ground. In that regard, there is text now on establishing sustainable development as one key element of the overarching framework of the work of the General Assembly, which is new. There was much discussion on trying to enhance the role of the ECOSOC in its relationship with the Commission on Sustainable Development.

    Finally, more directly on your question in your introductory remarks about the future of the Commission on Sustainable Development, it is an institution that, while it has its difficulties, like every international structure, I think has over the last ten years, particularly with regard to the engagement of stakeholders and civil society, proven to be a very effective forum for discussion of sustainable development issues. A number of decisions were taken on how to further strengthen the commission. I can give you some concrete examples.

    There is a desire for the CSD to play an enhanced role in the review and monitoring of Agenda 21. That's nothing new really, but it is particularly to foster coherence on issues of implementation in partnerships. This is a new area for the commission, what role they will play in partnerships that may not be solely of an intergovernmental nature. That's a subject of ongoing discussions.

    There was also a view that the CSD could play a more helpful role in identifying constraints associated with implementation on a broad level.

    There was also a strong desire for the CSD to take up issues related to financial assistance in technology transfer capacity development, alongside sectoral issues.

    With practical modalities, how the CSD will operate, there was a decision in Bali that it would really only focus on negotiations every second year. As you know, there's a lot of energy put into negotiating outcomes on an annual basis at the CSD, and there was an agreement that perhaps it would be more effective if the negotiation was focused every two years and it did perform more as a dialogue opportunity for discussion and analysis, rather than forcing countries to come together and always produce an outcome, when discussion is an important element of the work of the CSD.

    There was also agreement to give greater consideration in its work to the role of science.

    Finally, there was agreement to further the contribution of educators in the activities of the CSD in the future.

    So those are some highlights. Again, there remains work to be done on the role of the CSD with regard to partnerships that may emerge from Johannesburg, still a subject of great discussion.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿  (0925)  

    The Chair: That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

    We have on the list, Mr. Mills, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Tonks, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Bailey, and Madam Redman.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I have several questions. When we look at a conference like this, who will be there on behalf of Canada, and what mandate will they have to present the Canadian point of view on these various issues?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: While the delegation has not been finalized, it will comprise not only experts in the fields that will be under negotiation in Johannesburg, but a broad representation of the various sectors of civil society that are interested in this. In our prepatory meetings, for example, there have been representatives of environmental groups, of development associations, of youth, of the private sector, of aboriginal peoples, and that will continue. As well, parliamentarians will be asked to be part of the delegation--the number I do not know. So the delegation will be broad in its representation, and it will have every opportunity accorded to all delegations at this conference to express the Canadian point of view.

    Mr. Bob Mills: The people out there who pay the bills, the taxpayers, look at a lot of what happens at these things as a lot of talk, a lot of good ideas, generalities, and so on. How do we convert that into some meaningful action? Particularly when you have so many countries, when you have 50,000 people, how do you turn that into anything but just a bunch of talk?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: There are two aspects to that. One is that with the intergovernmental agreements the prepatory meetings have been negotiating, we are looking towards not just expressions of visions, although these are important, but action we hope governments can agree to. That is why, second, we are placing considerable emphasis, perhaps equal emphasis, on this notion of partnerships. We are looking for two things. One is pragmatic, practical intergovernmental agreements, the other is real, coherent partnerships that take on a responsibility to accomplish something, with goals and milestones expressed.

¿  (0930)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: Water, for example, is a major issue around the world. We say it's important that we have clean water, and yet obviously, in Canada we don't really have a full water inventory. We don't know about our aquifers, we don't know very much about what happens, whether they are in a positive or negative charge position. We don't know a lot of things about water in our own country. Yet if we really were to challenge that issue, I'm sure we, along with most of the world, could solve that problem of water. It's not that difficult. Scientifically, we certainly have the means to do it, and yet we talk about it. I don't know what kind of action we're going to get out of this to really say in five years time or ten years time, we fixed the water problem, we fixed the air problem, whatever it is that we challenge.

    That brings me to another question, about climate change and where that is going to be on this agenda. Is it not there at all, and how does it relate to alternative energy and all kinds of research there, action projects? If the whole world got behind the energy question, we could fix it. Wind, solar, hydrogen, there are all kinds of answers there. I don't see that. I just see a bunch of generalities and talk. I don't see anybody with real action. Maybe that's my business background, where I would say, here's the problem, what are the solutions? Let's do them. It seems that in government we often just talk about it.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: On the water question, I would say the major focus to date has been on access to clean water and sanitation services for those who don't have them at all, which is very much the case in the developing world and in rural areas. This also follows up on the millennium development goal, which the world leaders agreed on in the year 2000 at a big summit. This is a focus on basically reducing the number of people without access to fresh water by half by the year 2015. It's just a follow-up on that goal, which is actually quite ambitious, considering the number of people who don't have access to fresh water. We can provide you with a copy of the text, which is up on the UN website right now and shows the language that's basically been agreed on for this area.

    Second, on climate change, I would say the major focus, not surprisingly, is now on the ratification of Kyoto. We had the Marrakesh meeting last year, which pulled together much of the final work on the protocol. The focus is very much on ratification. I think the biggest controversy is in finding language that deals with climate change that the U.S. can agree to. A number of countries, as you probably know, have already moved to try to ratify the protocol before the summit, the European Union, Japan, several of the other Europeans, to the point where now Russia, essentially, is the country needed to actually bring the Kyoto protocol into force. I don't think they will likely ratify before Johannesburg, but that's the major focus. There's other language, but I'm just trying to give you a sense of where the major focus of discussion is right now.

    As for the follow-up, it's very much in implementation. The idea is that countries that, for instance, pledged money at the Monterrey meeting would now get a sense of how the money is spent. In some sense, Monterrey identified the sources of funding, and at Johannesburg we should be deciding what the priorities are for international expenditure. It isn't just aid money, it's actually countries themselves getting their own act together on their own national level, as well as getting their private sectors and other sectors involved. It's fairly pragmatic, but again, it's governments agreeing to do things.

    What is interesting this time is also trying to get the business and other groups that come in public and private partnerships of various sorts to support some of these things. So all of a sudden, you're finding these partnerships growing up to actually support the water implementation issue, not just leaving it to government. For some time the UN system has not recognized the reality of how things get done in the world. That would be, I would say, the most active area. We're hoping these partnerships can leverage a lot more funds out of the private sector than we would normally have there. Right now there's a lot of activity internationally to put these partnerships together.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Perhaps, Mr. Ballhorn, it might not be too bold to suggest that not only Russia, but also Canada could play a major role in making Kyoto operative, if it were to ratify it soon.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: There's a public consultation under way, so I think that would have to play out.

    The Chair: I hope we will keep in mind that Canada could also play a role in making Kyoto operative and we don't have to just rely on Russia.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): You're more optimistic than I am, Mr. Chair, if you think Kyoto is going to be ratified by Canada before Johannesburg. That's one comment.

    I have another comment before I ask the first question, because I don't want to put the witnesses in any kind of difficult position. I have been pressing the minister in the House to give us the national report. It's obvious from his answers that he has decided he's not going to release it to the public until either Johannesburg or just before. I'm not going to ask you to rationalize or justify that, but I do want some specific background information.

    My understanding is that most of the other countries around the globe that have participated in the run-up to Johannesburg have, in fact, published their national reports. Is that accurate or not?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Many countries have published their national reports and many countries have not. I don't know whether it's a majority or not, but I can provide you with a full list of countries that have published their national reports to the United Nations. I can provide that through the appropriate process, through the chair.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I would like to see that, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is on the United Nations website, but I will provide a hard copy.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Don't tell me what the report says, but did it address Canada's five points when they did the review? Did it set out where Canada is on each one of those?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: It did that and more, that is, it addressed the themes, as well as addressing issues that cut across themes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay.

    Ms. Hogan, I'm not sure if this came out of Bali, but was there an accepted model of what the world governance on the environment was going to be? Did it get that far?

    Ms. Christine Hogan: The language in the text on Bali talks about sustainable development governance as an evolutionary process, an issue we need to continue to work at and attempt to improve as new developments come along. But it does speak to the structures that are there at the international level, within the UN system and beyond, although, as people may be aware, there's a sensitivity within the UN system to comment on institutional arrangements that exist “beyond”, for example, Bretton Woods organizations or non-UN agencies. But there is a commentary and a recommendation to strengthen the coordination and the relationships between the UN system, including institutions like the Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN environment program, the UN development program, and non-UN entities at the international level.

    Where in our view there is a great potential for further improvement is at the regional level. Increasingly through the Johannesburg process there's been, I think, a recognition that you can take things happening at the global level so far, but when you start moving down to regional levels, particularly in developing countries--you see the developments going on in Africa--how can you strengthen the role of the UN regional economic commissions so they can help to advance sustainable development? They're very important tools we need to continue to strengthen, and they need to strengthen themselves too. The onus is not only on governments to strengthen these institutions, they have to be reforming themselves from the inside. So that's an issue.

    Then there is discussion on sustainable development governance at the national level.

¿  (0940)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: There was an ongoing debate at the international level on moving away from governance within the UN structure to an independent agency, along the lines of the WTO. Has that fallen off the parameters of the discussion?

    Ms. Christine Hogan: You're speaking of the suggestion of a world environment organization or something along those lines?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

    Ms. Christine Hogan: That wasn't an issue in Bali. There are countries, particularly the French, that continue to talk about that as an ultimate goal in strengthening the environmental pillar of sustainable development governance, but it wasn't raised by even the French in Bali. There seems to be agreement that the best approach is to strengthen the institutions we have, particularly the UN environment program, and to keep the focus on that, rather than creating a new institution with a new name that has the same financial problems and the same difficulties in its relationship with other agencies. I think, for now, the issue of a world environment organization seems to have been set aside.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: You mentioned funding for UNEP. Is there a recommendation from Bali as to the level at which it should be funded?

    Ms. Christine Hogan: What Bali did was endorse the outcome of the UNEP governing council meeting in Cartagena. In Cartagena there was an agreement by the governing council to develop a voluntary, indicative scale of assessments. There are many words there basically to say it's somewhere short of a UN-assessed scale, but there is a desire to set some targets for countries to meet. At the governing council meeting that will happen in February of next year that indicative scale of assessments of a voluntary nature will be discussed by the governing council, and we're very hopeful we'll be able to then secure on a more stable basis UNEP's funding into the long term.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    On my list are Reed, Tonks, Kraft Sloan, Bailey, Redman, and the chair.

    Mr. Reed.

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

    I find myself thinking in a parallel manner to Mr. Mills this morning, and frankly, the thought scares me a little bit.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Julian Reed: I made some notes and wrote down a few questions as you were making your presentations. As a layman looking at it, I wonder why progress has been so slow from Rio until now. What value is this if there is no action? To word it another way, where does the discussion stop and the action start? Is there a problem with things such as corrupt governments or a lack of education in countries that hold this up?

    It seems to me that we're on the edge of a tremendous opportunity on this planet, especially as our non-renewable resources are going to be phased out over time. The last projection was that the dividing line between the ability of petroleum to supply and the demand has been shrunk from 25 years to 10. At least that's the latest thinking. How gradual that movement is, we don't know, but it is taking place. What it should be doing is opening up an incredible opportunity for technologies, many of which are mature and can be applied in areas that are totally deficient of an energy supply. Yet it's not happening. The vision I have is that it's a market opportunity. It's an opportunity to do something. Why ain't it happening? That's the bottom-line question.

¿  (0945)  

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: There is a general feeling internationally that we have not come as far as we should have over the past decade. That's indisputable. There has been progress, but most countries feel it hasn't been sufficient. The purpose of Johannesburg is to renew that agenda. That's why there is a particular emphasis on implementing what we've already decided to do and on partnerships, because we need everybody engaged in this. That's point number one.

    You spoke about national governments. That is why Monterrey has been so important, in my view. Countries have stepped up to the plate, if I can use a colloquialism, and said, we will be there for you. We have pledged significant sums of money, but there is a reciprocal responsibility here. If we are to pledge this money, you will have to show that you have open, transparent, honest governance. That is the importance and the key to Monterrey, in my view, that reciprocal obligation. So I believe we've started down this path, and I believe Johannesburg can be a significant milestone along that road to implementation.

    With regard to the specifics, I think Dick wanted to say something.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: To follow up on governance, 10 years ago you couldn't talk about good governance and corruption at an international meeting. It would never get on the agenda, because the developing countries and others would say, no, we can't talk about that, that's too domestic, you shouldn't go there, it's too hard. But I think there's a difference now.

    Following Rio there were great expectations that there would be lots of development assistance coming from governments of the north. Thereafter the world's view about development assistance changed and government budgets changed. There was a decline in development assistance, not the increase that was anticipated. I think there was probably too much emphasis put on development assistance as the way of making sustainable development happen and not enough on private sector investment flows etc. You can look at the figures. Of course, private sector investment flows are much bigger than anything government gives, but they don't always go to the deserving, they often go to big countries. A lot of the countries don't get any real benefit from investment flows.

    I think the role of government has changed over the last 10 years. Governments have pulled back from being an operator and have become more of a regulator. There have been a lot of changes in concepts and a lot more privatization etc. The world has changed in 10 years. I think now the idea is to look at the world as it is and not put quite so much emphasis on development assistance being the solution to everything, but to put more on good governance and mobilizing domestic resources, leveraging resources, etc., which I think is much more pragmatic. It wasn't something people were really talking about 10 years ago.

    We hope it works. Again, there's no guarantee. It all depends on people following through on commitments made. It's always easier to talk about doing things than to do them when it comes to resources, but this time there's a lot of pragmatism around, which I don't think was the case 10 years ago, when they were still thinking development assistance from the north was going to the south. That was the main item. They weren't talking about investment.

    Mr. Julian Reed: It's obviously very difficult to persuade a private investor to move into a country, even an apparently sophisticated country like Argentina, which very recently has fallen apart economically--the repercussions are being felt here in Canada. I just wonder how in the world we get beyond that. If I'm an investor and I have some very practical technology I want to sell or take to another country, if there's no stability there and no transparency in government and if we're still looking forward to receiving the extra percentage of costs under the table or whatever it happens to be, it's not really going to happen.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: Do you have any examples?

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: A good example of some positive development in that area, where there's a realization that you're not going to get investment flows and you're not even going to get development assistance flows, other than disaster relief, unless you get your act together, is what's happening with the NEPAD, which is a link with the G-8 summit and very much a focus for Africa. The fact that the Africans themselves have got together and, I would say, analysed their problems and admitted in some cases that the problem is themselves, that they have not been good governments, and that they will have to do better in the future if they expect the world to come to them with both aid and finance is quite a change. They're also recognizing good governance. It's in their program of action. It's a very interesting document. Hopefully, it's something that will be taken up by other parts of the world that have some of the same problems. Africa in particular has been a neglected continent. It's a very difficult place to work in in many cases, because of government problems, war, etc. This is an effort by all the Africans to pull themselves together and present a plan of action to the developed world, specifically the G-8 countries, and say, we're getting our act together, can you help us? I think they're getting quite a positive response.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I still detect hope.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Absolutely. We live in hope.

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

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Next is Mr. Tonks, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks to the witnesses for being here.

    I'd be interested in pursuing this “getting our act together”. I attended the Habitat II conference, all of the preparatory conferences, as one of two representatives of cities in 1995, and the lead-up to the UN conference on sustainable development in Habitat II. We came out of there, leading into Agenda 21, with a number of initiatives that would incorporate and involve cities. Since we have, for the first time, representatives from Foreign Affairs, CIDA, and Environment in the same room, I'd be very interested to know what you see as the role of cities.

    In asking that question, let me just give you my observation. Just by chance, Mr. Chairman, because there was a vote coming up at Foreign Affairs, I was invited to attend the meeting dealing with the Kananaskis agenda. Nowhere was there any mention of cities, other than incorporated organizations that would be part of a delivery system to deal with the issues related to Africa. When the Prime Minister visited Africa, he didn't visit one project that CIDA and the cities.... There are over 40 of them in Africa that go back 20 years and are extremely successful. Not one project did he visit. So I think we have a huge opportunity with cities, yet I'm not overwhelmed with enthusiasm when I see the representation of cities, program delivery, civil society, bottom-up development, all the things that have been proven in respect of thinking globally and acting locally. I really am very frustrated that I don't see any visible advances with respect to the role of cities.

    I'd like a comment on that.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: We believe the role of cities in communities is really very important in advancing the sustainable development agenda, and as we were doing our public consultations across the country, we were quite heartened by the pride Canadians have in what their cities have been able to accomplish in sustainable development, recycling, air quality issues. They believe their communities are there. We recognize that, and that is why in my introductory remarks I talked about the sustainable cities initiative and our desire to profile that success story.

    Beyond the summit, there will be a number of very important side events going on in parallel. One of the most significant of those is a side event that will be sponsored by ICLE, the International Council for Local Environment. My understanding is that these are side events being organized by the organizations themselves. Canadian communities will be very well represented in that discussion, and I would be very surprised, if I may say so, if the delegation did not also include significant representation from communities and cities across the country, including their associations. I believe communities and cities will have a very high profile in Johannesburg and the events that are associated with it.

¿  (0955)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: In the implementation?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: In the implementation.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

    Nancy, did you want to add something?

    Ms. Nancy Hamzawi: This certainly came up in Bali, the role of local authorities, governance at all levels, whether it be at the local, municipal, national, or international level. It was recognized that interventions need to happen at all levels, and I think Canada was supportive of that concept, certainly of the important role of local authorities. As to CIDA's approach to funding various projects, we strongly believe in country-driven processes, but we believe as well that interventions need to happen at the local level, and in many instances they need to happen at the city level. We're most concerned about ensuring that there is a participatory approach that includes all stakeholders in that process.

    So if there is any perception that there is a lack of attention to the important role of cities, that's certainly not the case. If you are interested in further information on how CIDA is engaging--

    Mr. Alan Tonks: When I was with the FCM, I chaired the international committee and visited many of those townships in Africa. When you talk about the health needs, or you talk about empowering women, or you talk about corruption, and then you talk about real development, the cities and municipalities and townships not only have a mission and a credo with respect to sustainable development here, but they have the accountable and available delivery system, notwithstanding that they have private partnerships also that are transmittable and portable with respect to Africa.

    I don't see anything in the Kananaskis statement with respect to trying to grapple with the same constitutional problem we have here that exists at a state level, and it's a national issue. Mr. Reed asked the question, why isn't anything happening? It's not happening because there is rot at the top in just about every one of those African countries. There's no trickle-down, because it doesn't trickle. The only hope I see--and it goes back to my CUSO days too--is that you have to get on the ground, you must have accountability, and you have to start on a people-to-people basis. Unless you can do that with some degree of commitment from these rotten, top-heavy, bureaucratic entities in some of these countries, you won't make any progress. It's as simple as that, in Africa in particular. So take the best practice you have.

    I have to tell you, when the Prime Minister doesn't visit those places and nobody knows about them except the cities and towns in Canada--and the townsfolk, as you say, are very proud of them--if we don't institutionalize it some way with the power of our national authority in these conferences, then nothing will happen. I hope I'm not being overly emotional about this, but I think you get my drift.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Madam Kraft Sloan, then Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

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

    This committee travelled to Washington and had the opportunity to attend some briefings on what the Americans were trying to accomplish with regard to Johannesburg--Rio Plus 10. We've had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Lerer and Mr. Ballhorn because of the work I'm doing on another organization, a couple of briefings on Rio Plus 10 as well.

    We've been hearing a lot, certainly in the press, about this idea of good governance in the south. This idea of reciprocal responsibility has been mentioned, Mr. Chair, by one of the witnesses, that if countries in the north are going to provide aid, the countries in the south have to clean up their act. I guess I get a little cranky when I hear this all the time. My concern is that problems with openness, transparency, and corruption are not only with governments in the south. Governments in the north have to take a look at what they do. Certainly, the whole globalization movement has huge levels of concern about what G-7 and G-8 countries are doing with regard to national and international policy-making. I think there is a real feeling out there that we may be part of the problem as well in the north, it's not just countries in the south.

    The other thing that disturbs me in some measure, because of my work as a parliamentarian for almost the past decade in this country, is the use of the word partnership. I think, in many respects, partnership is a very positive thing, and I work very hard in my own riding to promote partnerships, but sometimes it is a code word for corporatization. If one takes a look at the recent legacy Enron has left us, there is a huge concern with corporate responsibility as well.

    Perhaps the witnesses can relieve some of my crankiness as to the fact that openness, transparency, and corruption are the purview of not only governments in the south, but governments in the north and the private sector as well.

À  (1000)  

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I would like to respond. The text applies to everybody, so if we agree on good governance, it applies to all countries, it isn't just a focus on developing countries. I would say the resistance on agreeing to it tends to come from developing countries. The challenge is to find some words they can sign onto. When we negotiate these texts, they're not texts we vote on, they're texts we have to reach a consensus on. That's the challenge. What is encouraging is the fact that at the Monterrey meeting there was language on good governance that I think is balanced. We want balanced language in this text as well, and we're starting to get some of that.

    There's also a focus on corporate social responsibility in the text. That is also challenging. It's where people want to go, there's a range of ambitions in that text, but the language is still very much in play. In fact, there's language on almost every subject under the sun in the text. That's the challenge of the text right now.

    We can certainly show you where it is in the text. The document, as I say, is something like 78 pages long, and there are sections we can show you where the language is, what's agreed and what's not yet agreed.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That would be very helpful.

    I'm not blaming the officials here for things Americans have said in our meetings in Washington, but the focus has often been on the south to clean up their act. If one of the most important components of sustainable development is equity, we have to understand our role. We also have to understand our historical role in colonialism. We also have to understand what is sometimes meant by the word investment. I'm very pleased that these initiatives are happening. I'm pleased to see an increase in assistance, investment, whatever you want to call it. I'm pleased to see this new emerging relationship within Africa. But I still have a big question mark as to who is really going to benefit. The history of many hundreds of years has suggested that it's not the people who are in most need and the people who are being taking advantage of who benefit.

    The other question I would have is on the development of the national report. I would like to know who's responsible for compiling the national report and, if there is a consultation process, who might be involved in the consultation.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: The earth summit secretariat, of which I am the executive director, was given the task of preparing and completing the national report. It is dependent upon a broad authorship, which included many experts and authors. I'd be pleased to provide a complete listing of all the authors and the reference group involved specifically in this preparation. Their names are on our website.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are they in or outside government?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Most are outside government.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We are talking about good governance, and the heart of good governance is a healthy, critical democracy. Following up on some of the questions Mr. Mills and Mr. Reed raised, I think parliamentary oversight is a very important component of these international gatherings, and very often, the opportunity for parliamentary oversight does not exist. There are very few opportunities for parliamentarians, who are elected officials, to take part. So I'm wondering if you could tell the committee how many officials will be attending and how many elected parliamentarians will be attending in Johannesburg.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: At this time I cannot provide the numbers. I can only say that officials will be attending at various levels, and I anticipate that a number of parliamentarians will be invited. As to specific numbers, I simply don't know at this point.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The minister indicated to one of our colleagues that two members of Parliament would be going to Johannesburg with him.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: I'm not aware of that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome to our honoured witnesses. This is one of the committees where you learn to appreciate not only the contribution of people like yourselves coming, but also the contributions of people on both sides of the House.

    This particular topic reminds me of the old saying of Mark Twain that everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. Certainly, everybody's talking about the environment, but it isn't fair to say nobody does anything about it. I'm not a professional scientist and I'm not really into it, but I do know, from travelling through this country and overseas, a great deal has been done about it.

    Mr. Tonks mentioned the real problem, and that is from the top down. This is an overall observation from an amateur, you might say. We have all these technical things, but it seems to me that we have to develop a salesmanship program. It has to be one that is catchy, not just nationally, but also internationally. There have been companies in the world that have done well internationally because of a simple slogan. I was thinking the other day of “A little dab will do ya”, which made Brylcreem famous--doesn't do me any good any more. Those are things that I believe we should consider.

    The other thing I'd like you to consider is this. The amateur environmentalists who are not quite sure of the facts, but continue to spew out all types of information that is scientifically incorrect, and if it's not incorrect, it can't be proven, are not helping the cause. They are hindering the cause and they are alarming people, so that they take a negative stand. That's not a question, but an observation. Also, I think the environmental movement in the way of the protest gets entangled with the same mentality. That too does not help our efforts.

    Now I will come back to a couple of questions.

    Christine Hogan, you mentioned the big attempt to have compliance. Are there any punitive measures for those countries, once they agree to an environmental pact, if they break it on compliance or if they break the rules. What strength will the international agreement have, or the agreement that is under the United Nations at the present time?

À  (1010)  

    Ms. Christine Hogan: I can attempt an answer. Also, Dick, who's been involved over the last decade in the negotiation of many of these multilateral environmental agreements will assist me and supplement, as appropriate.

    The issue of compliance is an increasingly large topic right now internationally. The MEAs, the multilateral environmental agreements, haven't typically been designed with punitive measures in them. It's not in the nature of the international environmental law regime as it now exists. There are varying degrees in different MEAs. You need to look at them on a case-by-case basis. What's increasingly happening, though, is work and discussion at the international level to develop guidelines on enforcement of and compliance with the multilateral environmental agreements. There is a sense that countries sign and ratify, but don't necessarily have the capacity to live up to the letter of the law that's contained in those agreements. We're increasingly finding that for our developing country partners, there's a capacity development problem that underlies the compliance issue. So there's a strong desire to look at capacity development and to work with our developing country partners to develop the capacities of their national environmental institutions, for example, to manage this increasing burden of international environmental law.

    Different agreements contain different provisions, so it would be a little difficult to make a broad statement, but I think it's fair to say that in the next decade this will become more and more of an issue, as we move away from this negotiation phase of new agreements towards looking at the issues of implementation.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Madam Redman, please.

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would just like to make an observation. I've seen the officials before us in action, and clearly we have the A-Team on this project as well, as we did when we were negotiating in Bonn with the Kyoto Protocol. I commend you for your years of dedication and hard work.

    It seems to me that implicit in some of the comments and questions is a sense that as a country, we may not be where we had hoped to be. I know you've talked about this. I'm wondering if you could put into context our preparations vis-à-vis other countries and the kind of dialogue we've had with the UN.

    You talked about the partnerships, which I think speaks to some of the issues Mr. Tonks and Mr. Reed were broaching in some of their questioning. Perhaps you could you talk about the things that happen on the margins and in the corridors at major international conferences. I think people often look at the Summit of the Americas, or indeed Kananaskis and the G-8 meeting, and think, because of the protests and the costs, it might be preferable to go to a virtual meeting. I think it would really do away with a lot of the benefit that builds up over time and isn't as obvious. We may not sign a document about it, but so often these meetings are not just about the substance or the nature of the issue, but they're very much about the how, and I think that's facilitated on the margins of the main meetings.

    I'm wondering if you could make comments on those things.

    Ms. Christine Hogan: As I am a Canadian operating at the international level and looking at how delegations approach us and the role I feel we play, it is a bit subjective in that sense. There's no question that in Bali and in the process leading to Johannesburg Canada has been extremely constructive. Mr. Ballhorn should be answering this question. He has been on the bureau for the preparatory process for the summit and chaired literally half of the discussions that took place in Bali. We chaired the discussion on the African text. This wasn't an easy role to be playing. Canada was frequently sought out as a mediator on many issues, trying to find a resolution to tough text. So I really believe we've played a very constructive role. We continue to be a delegation sought after for our objectivity on issues and for our flexibility in many cases.

    On the partnership issue and the corridor chats, you're exactly right. There are endless formal discussions that happen in intergovernmental meetings, but there were dozens, if not hundreds, of side events that took place on Bali to further discussions on the global program of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based sources. The UN environment program launched its global environmental outlook report in Bali, which is a fantastic report. Hopefully, we'll get copies of it very shortly, and we'll share them with the members of the committee. It's a very large document that basically gives the world a sense of where we are with the state of the environment on a global basis.

    So you're right. Those opportunities are few and far between to really be able to gauge where each country is at and where the international agenda is moving, and they are very important opportunities.

    On the partnership issue, we spent a lot of time in Bali talking informally about partnerships, and as a result of those conversations, there is further clarity about how we're going to manage over the next few weeks to talk about putting the partnerships together, what the modalities are, what the role of the CSD might be in the future, and other issues like that. So I think you're on the mark in suggesting that this text is a small bit of what happened in Bali. It's a very important part, but a lot of informal progress was also made.

À  (1015)  

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Canada is often in this in-between role. We're not the biggest of the developed, and we're not the smallest. Being on the bureau, which has given us an inside track on the negotiations, gave us a little extra influence, but it also gave us a lot more work. This has been a good part of my life for the last year. We have good support from NGOs, business, and youth. We have a very good team. I'm really quite impressed with how we've come together on this.

    It's a very challenging negotiation, because there are so many subjects. You kind of wish people would stop adding more and more subjects, because it's very hard to get this very huge, horizontal text and make any sense, make sure you're not going backwards. All sorts of games are played by those who are opposed to positions, say, of the UN. All of a sudden, we're fighting over abortion rights or whaling, and because there are all these code words, you don't realize you're getting into them unless you have the right people there. In fact, one of the major issues on the floor on the last night was the abortion issue, which was basically between us and the Americans. This is about sustainable development, and all of a sudden, we're into this issue.

    It's quite a different summit and document from Rio. Even though it's obviously a follow-up, things have changed. The world is truly into sustainable development. It isn't just about the environment. It's very much on the social side, as well as the economic.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I really do appreciate your putting that context on this important issue.

    I'd also like to comment that no decision has been made as to how many parliamentarians will go to Johannesburg. I know an earlier comment was made naming a figure, but no decision has been made at this time.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Redman.

    I have a couple of observations from this end of the table, and perhaps a question. In your presentation this morning, Mr. Lerer, “People, Planet and Prosperity”, the word poverty isn't mentioned once. I was wondering why, considering the fact that the Bali document goes into poverty eradication on page 2. Maybe you could give an explanation for that.

    The other observation I would like to make is that in the same document from Bali, in clause 127, there is an agreed-upon statement about the Commission on Sustainable Development, which for the past 10 years has been entrusted with the implementation of the Brundtland report. It reads, “The CSD should continue to be the high-level commission on sustainable development within the UN system”. I would take strenuous objection to that statement if I had any say in this, because of the ineffective performance so far of that commission. I would actually suggest that it would be by far preferable to have a text that would instead suggest the necessity of questioning the effectiveness of it and the desirability of continuing to have it as the implementing agency within the UN system, reporting to an obscure body called ECOSOC--nobody knows what it does, where it sits, and to whom it is accountable--and thus seriously jeopardizing the implementation of the Brundtland report. This would also explain why, as you told us this morning, so little progress has been made in the past decade.

    I would hope, Mr. Ballhorn, that we will resist the temptation--you made an oblique mention of it--to blame the lack of progress on corrupt governments, because that would certainly not be a tag Canada would like to be given. I think Ms. Hogan had it dead on when she said it is a lack of capacity. As Madam Kraft Sloan indicated, it is perhaps also an inability on the part of the developed half of the world to see to it that its aid arrives at its destination. But to blame the developing world for being corrupt and thereby explain the lack of focus on that is, I think, a very undesirable approach.

    Could I perhaps have some comments.

À  (1020)  

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: To respond to your last point, I think corruption in government is a factor. It is not the only factor, but it's a very major factor--

    The Chair: It is a factor in every government, Mr. Ballhorn, not just in the developing world.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: But some governments have a bigger problem than others. Certainly, in the developing world, and I lived there for some years, there's no question--

    The Chair: But there are other ways of going about it, and you can also--

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Are you the chairman of this meeting, or are we going to hear from the deputation?

    The Chair: Allow me, Mr. Tonks, to finish my intervention.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Your intervention is interrupting the witness, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: There are other ways of going about providing aid, such as by bypassing governments.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: That's what you do when you have a corrupt government. That's also a challenge, because in some cases the government will not let you come in.

    To move on, I think the Commission on Sustainable Development has had a mixed record of success. It's partly because of where it sits in the UN system. It's a commission that reports to the Economic and Social Council, which is one of the main bodies of the UN system. But it's also because it hasn't been linked well to financial resources, even of the UN system. I think we've all learned from that experience, and we're trying not to repeat it. Also, I think it spent too much time negotiating text and not enough on actual follow-up on the ground. That's what we're changing this time around, so that we're not negotiating Rio outcomes all the time. Every other year we will be doing that. We will actually be looking at the track record on the ground in all countries, not just the developing world.

    So we think we can actually make some improvements to the Commission on Sustainable Development. We think we need it, however. We need a place where we can integrate all the factors. Other institutions don't do that. They focus on one aspect or the other, they don't try to bring together the economic, social, and environmental aspects. But again, this is, I would say, incrementalism, because that's what tends to work in the UN system. At the end of the day, we have to convince all the members to accept this text. It's a real challenge to get 180-some countries to agree on something.

À  (1025)  

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: With regard to your first comment and question on poverty alleviation, that is the umbrella of this whole summit. In the interest of time and at the request of the chair, I cut my presentation short at the beginning of the meeting. I would have waxed more fully on poverty alleviation if I had had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Would you mind including that item in your written presentation?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: I take your suggestion, and the next time I make a presentation, it will be front and centre, sir.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    On the second round, Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, if I may, one of my colleagues wishes to speak. I think we've informed the clerk about this.

    Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I have a time constraint. I was supposed to be chairing a meeting as of half an hour ago at another place on the subject of the summit. It includes some foreign visitors, so I can't reschedule them. I beg the indulgence of the committee to go and chair my meeting, because I have people waiting for me. I'm sorry about this. I would like to be here longer. I enjoy our exchanges here.

    The Chair: Come back again.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, for the intervention.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: You talked about poverty and corruption. I believe there is a relationship. I think communication is the key, simply because I don't think you're going to get too much cooperation from those countries if you say to them, your problem is corruption. It reminds me of the story about the young lad who went out on his first date. He came home and his father said, what was she like? Was she pretty? He said, Dad, her face would stop a clock. His father said, son, you can't say that, but what you could say is, when I look into your eyes, time stands still. So I think there are different ways of doing it.

    I want to come back to Canada. In most of the larger countries you have the national government, provincial governments, and municipal governments. Traditionally, the local governments fight with the provincial government and so on and so forth. But here the federal government takes on the leading role when it comes to the environment, as it should, because it is indeed a federal issue, with the cooperation of the provinces. I think it has been fairly successful. But when it gets to the local government level, it appears that its direction is coming down more as an ordinance, without proper education and consultation, and we have had a lot of negative reaction because of that. I can speak only of my own province. It seems to me that the national organization should develop a communication plan on the environment that goes down to the local level, because they're the people who will have to carry out the program. I think something has been missing in this. You'll get the cooperation of industry more quickly than you will that of local governments, because they feel they're not being addressed directly. It's orders coming down. I just make that as a comment.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Thank you for your suggestions, sir. That's very helpful.

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry Mr. Ballhorn had to leave. His comments about NEPAD are certainly not ones we support as a party. There's the perpetuation of the colonial mindset of dictating, but it's not so much around the issue of corruption. Everybody, including the African governments, recognizes the problem, but they don't like being tarred as the assignees of corruption per se in the world, as all governments--arguably even this one--from time to time are subject to corrupt practices.

    Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen the statement from Bali yet, but we have some concerns about NEPAD. If you move beyond the perfunctory wording in that policy, you'll find that there are all sorts of policies being dictated by the World Bank and the World Trade Organization as to the way economies, particularly in Africa, are going to be required to perform that have nothing to do with corruption, but everything to do with an economic analysis of what I would call a right-wing nature. I'm really worried that if we're seeing the same type of pressure being brought to bear not only on African governments, but also on other governments in this run-up to Johannesburg and coming out of it, they're going to be dictated to as to how they meet the framework of sustainable development from an ideological vantage point, as opposed to just a practical one. For instance, here's the problem. We don't have a water system here that provides safe water to the whole population. If it's left to the World Bank, they're going to dictate that it has to be done by the private sector, as opposed to other alternatives that may be more viable. So I'm concerned.

    Mr. Lerer, has that whole discussion gone on? Is there resistance from other parts of the world to the NEPAD-type approach?

À  (1030)  

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Let me speak first in general terms, and then I'll turn it over to my colleague Ms. Hamzawi.

    I cannot speak to what other international organizations may do or the interpretation associated with that by either the press or others. What I can tell you is that the kind of thing we have been talking about is the need to see progress on openness, transparency, predictability, and stability in governance in order to attract the necessary investment to bring countries out of their poverty cycles. What I understand the Canadian government to be saying, in the vernacular, is, if you are prepared to do that, we will be there to help you along that road. I have seen the interpretation that says “ this means”. I have not heard that within official circles.

    Nancy, did you want to comment?

    Ms. Nancy Hamzawi: On your specific question regarding NEPAD and how it was captured within the context of the Bali text, there is a full chapter on sustainable development for Africa within the text.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Which text are you referring to?

    Ms. Nancy Hamzawi: This is the Bali text, the advance unedited text of June 12 that was referred to earlier.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is available on the UN site.

    Ms. Nancy Hamzawi: In the introductory part of that chapter it makes reference to the NEPAD as a key document guiding sustainable development in Africa. There is a full agreed paragraph within the text that essentially states that countries would support the implementation of the vision of NEPAD and other established regional and subregional efforts. So it would not be exclusively to the NEPAD, but also to other complementary initiatives.

    The reference to good governance is not intended to be only in developing countries. There is a paragraph that has been agreed to in the first chapter of the text that refers to good governance within each country. So there is agreement by all countries that good governance needs to be dealt with by everyone, not just half of the world.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    I understand how difficult it is to work on a national or state-to-state basis. You have to work with the existing infrastructure, both political and bureaucratic. My experience has been that when it comes to development, there are two very important parallel roads we have to go down. One is the democratization of institutions. That involves the empowerment of people who are part of institutions that exist or creating them where they don't exist. Our CIDA programs are going down that road. There's a crossover on that road in relation to the receptiveness to aid in a rational and intelligent way and the notion of investing in educational institutions, health institutions, and the other major sectors. What I'm trying to say is that unless there is a balance between the pressures that exist on developing countries and their existing infrastructure, political and bureaucratic, there is no trickle down.

    My experience has been that with our CIDA programs, in respect of our best practices and the analysis of those programs and the measures, where we are in fact working on people-to-people relationships in cities, towns, and townships from the very beginning of the people going over there, there's an accountability built into the system to let things happen. That could involve, for example, a community-based health program, an educational program, or a private sector program providing the best available technology for water improvement.

    I would like your response, not as to the despotic kind of corruption, but as to the pervasive and profound corruption that is so difficult to bump out of the picture to allow for the people and their needs. I'd like to think Johannesburg would start to articulate those things. If there aren't representatives of cities, towns, and townships who have experienced that, then there's no corporate memory and we have to keep doing that.

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: With regard to beginning to articulate that in Johannesburg, the answer is, absolutely.

    The second point is, through Monterrey and Johannesburg, to demonstrate that we are serious about that commitment if there is that reciprocal responsibility, and I think CIDA is doing that in its projects. The demonstration that we are serious and that we will keep our commitments if that reciprocal responsibility is honoured will be a very significant signal.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I appreciate that. Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I have two unrelated comments or questions. First, to get 180 people who are at totally different places in their way of life and culture to agree to a text seems to be an impossible task. I just wonder how it is possible to get a text that is workable when you have such a huge group? Would it not be better to have divisions? You know what I'm trying to say. I just can't imagine how you can get agreement without ending up with something so watered down that it really doesn't mean anything.

    I was in China recently, and GMOs were talked about as being a huge issue for them. From my own farming experience, I know I can double my yield by using genetically modified seed. So instead of getting 30 bushels of canola to the acre, I can get 60. What that means to the developing world is tremendous. An African country could double its yield of food. How do we deal with that? Is that part of the Johannesburg agenda?

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: If I may begin and then turn it over to my colleague, it is an indisputable fact that getting 180 countries to agree to anything is a difficult task. That's why we have people such as Christine, Richard, and Nancy make this their career, and they do remarkably well at it. That is why we are so interested in regional partnerships in particular. While we can agree on text, one of the important avenues for implementation will be regional efforts and regional agreements. That's why, for example, we put emphasis on the Americas, the Arctic Council, and the CEC. We believe these are very important adjuncts to this global situation.

    With regard to GMOs, do my colleagues want to comment?

À  (1040)  

    Ms. Christine Hogan: The text in Bali calls for the early entry into force of the biosafety protocol under the biodiversity convention. There hasn't been a lot of discussion about genetically modified organisms per se in the lead-up to Johannesburg, but there are references to the legal instruments in place, urging people to move in that direction, so that however that industry evolves, there are the appropriate international mechanisms to protect biodiversity, which is the sustainable development aspect of it, from an environmental point of view.

    With regard to your earlier comment about 180 countries, that is why the Johannesburg preparatory process was designed the way it was. I think there was a real feeling that Agenda 21 is still highly relevant. Implementing that is the top priority for Johannesburg. How it's implemented isn't necessarily at the multilateral global level, so there needs to be room made for this partnership dimension, or the tier 2 type of outcomes from Johannesburg. That's clearly where the emphasis will be in the next few weeks and in the follow-up. Johannesburg is going to be a massive call to reinforce existing commitments and to get on with the job of implementing. That's the task at hand.

    But not to dispel too much the positive outcomes that are on the table, there has been agreement on a lot of what's in the 78 pages. There are some very positive messages in there, including in the area of health and environment, which Canada is very encouraged by. We hope we can move the yardsticks forward on that issue. So there have been a few areas where we have moved the intergovernmental multilateral process forward. It's easy to be pessimistic, but it's my job not to be totally pessimistic.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Good. I've seen you in action and I know you work hard at it.

    The Chair: On that positive note, perhaps we might adjourn.

    On behalf of the committee, thank you for coming and for bringing us such a broad range of information and experience. We hope to see you again.

    Mr. Harvey Lerer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.